DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Pitts, 548 P.2d 1202.

30 citing documents.

  • State of Arizona v. Oscar Pena Trujillo 462 P.3d 550 Ariz. 2020
  • State of Arizona v. Oscar Pena Trujillo 462 P.3d 550 Ariz. 2020
    at 350 (stating that defendant’s fines “undeniably” constitute “criminal sentence[s], penalties, [and] punishment[s]” (internal quotation marks omitted)); ¶ 111 n.14 (App. 2010) (stating that in Arizona, it is well-established that a fine is a criminal penalty); (same).
  • State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. FAR WEST WATER & SEWER INC. 228 P.3d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Payne 225 P.3d 1131 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    “A fine is a pecuniary form of punishment or sum of money exacted from a person guilty of an offense.” , , (fine is “a pecuniary punishment imposed by a lawful tribunal upon a person convicted of a crime”); , Black’s Law Dictionary 664 (8th ed. 2004) (“‘fine’” is “pecuniary criminal punishment or civil penalty payable to the public treasury”).
  • State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    “A fine is a pecuniary form of punishment or sum of money exacted from a person guilty of an offense.” see also Frazier v. Terrill, 65 Ariz. 131, 136, (fine is “a pecuniary punishment imposed by a lawful tribunal upon a person convicted of a crime”); Black’s Law Dictionary 664 (8th ed. 2004) (“‘fine’” is “pecuniary criminal punishment or civil penalty payable to the public treasury”).
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
  • State v. Medina 975 P.2d 94 Ariz. 1999
    The Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure do not mandate that a presentenee report contain a recommendation by the probation officer, , and we see no need to impose such a requirement here.
  • State v. Sheaves 747 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. Sheaves 747 P.2d 1237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
  • State v. City Court 673 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
  • State v. City Court 673 P.2d 339 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1983
    State v. Bird, 95 Wash.2d 83
  • State v. Jenson 597 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Jenson 597 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Heberly 587 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Heberly 587 P.2d 260 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Decker 580 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Decker 580 P.2d 333 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 453 Ariz. 1978
    125, , State v. Van Meter, 7 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Decker 580 P.2d 351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Decker 580 P.2d 351 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    the mixing of the sentences and probation was illegal.
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Risher 574 P.2d 460 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
    (holding that a fine cannot be imposed as a condition of probation, as a fine is a “sentence” and probation is a “suspension of sentence”); , (holding that for enhanced punishment purposes, probation is the holding of a “sentence” in abeyance); I
  • State v. Gray 564 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
  • State v. Gray 564 P.2d 101 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1977
    it was improper to impose the fine as a condition of appellant’s probation and that part of the order was a nullity.
  • State v. Hiralez 555 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
  • State v. Hiralez 555 P.2d 362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
    390 , (1 CA-CR 1183, April 22, 1976, review granted June 22, 1976, S.Ct.