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. Reese, 603 P.2d 104.

38 citing documents.

  • State v. Mata 550 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. Mata 550 P.3d 619 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • In Re Joseph G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • In Re Joseph G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    -15 (App. 1979) (restitution is appropriate when a defendant “consents to such restitution” “in a plea agreement or otherwise”).
  • State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    Second, because restitution “is not a criminal punishment,” and is “bound by different rules than the adjudication of guilt,” Fancher, 169 Ariz. at 268, the remedies necessary to cure a deprivation of due process during restitution proceedings need not be as severe as those that may be required at trial.
  • State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Reed 435 P.3d 1044 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    1249 , 1252, 197 L.Ed.2d 611 (2017) (when a conviction is reversed and will not be retried, due process requires the government to refund fees, costs and restitution paid without the defendant filing a civil proceeding); State v. Reese , , 214-15, , 106-07 (App. 1979) (concluding, absent a plea agreement to the contrary, restitution could not be awarded for charges dismissed or never brought).
  • State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
  • In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
  • State v. Barrett 864 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Barrett 864 P.2d 1078 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (“A party sued civilly has important due process rights, including appropriate pleadings, discovery, and a right to a trial by jury on the specific issues of liability and damages.
  • State v. Baltzell 857 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Baltzell 857 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    In counterargument, the defendant *439 , and claims that his explicit approval of restitution for funeral expenses was an implicit objection to the remaining items.
  • State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    “[Restitution to a victim of crime is not a criminal punishment exacted by the state____”
  • State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Falco 783 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Falco 783 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Pearce 751 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
  • State v. Pearce 751 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
    quoting People v. Richards, 17 Cal.3d 614 , 131 Cal.Rptr.
  • State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    appellant argues that the restitution order was improper because liability for the accident itself has never been determined.
  • State v. O'Connor 703 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. O'Connor 703 P.2d 563 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    1 This court has held that “it is an abuse of discretion for a sentencing judge to require restitution by a defendant for a crime in which there is no admission or adjudication of guilt or liability, unless the defendant, in a plea agreement or otherwise, consents to such restitution.” -15 , -07 (App.1979)
  • State v. Skiles 704 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Skiles 704 P.2d 283 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1985
  • State v. Pleasant 701 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Pleasant 701 P.2d 15 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Young 670 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
  • State v. Young 670 P.2d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1983
    Appellant’s , , is misplaced.
  • State v. Monick 611 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
  • State v. Monick 611 P.2d 946 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1980
    In support of his argument, , in which this Court held, under similar facts, that “it is an abuse of discretion for a sentencing judge to require restitution by a defendant for a crime in which there is no admission or adjudication of guilt or liability, unless the defendant, in a plea agreement or otherwise, consents to suc