Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Sanchez, 506 P.2d 644.

42 citing documents.

State v. Turay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Turay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(App. 3 STATE v. TURAY Decision of the Court 1996)
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
While broad, this discretion is not unlimited and “does not allow capriciousness or arbitrariness on the part of the trial court.”
State v. Burress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Burress Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Howell Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Howell Barnes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
¶13 A probation violation hearing “does not take on the character of a criminal prosecution when the alleged violation involves breaking a particular law.” (citation omitted); (“The revocation of probation is not subject to the limitations of a formal trial.” (citation omitted)).
State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Rodriguez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
s the court abused its discretion in revoking his probation because none of his probation conditions required him to return to Arizona at the oral directive of his probation officer if an issue with Interstate Compact arose, and probation did not modify the conditions in writing to allow this directive.1 We review the court’s decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion, and will uphold the court’s violation findings unless they are “arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence,” ¶
State v. Stanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Stanley Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Fronczak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Fronczak Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶16 “Probation is a matter of grace and not a matter of right,” and “lie[s] within the sound discretion of the trial court.”
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Chavez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Douglas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lemole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lemole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
ANALYSIS ¶6 We review a revocation of probation for abuse of discretion and will reverse only upon a finding of “capriciousness or arbitrariness on the part of the trial court.” ().
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dewys Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Dewys Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Wallis 646 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Wallis 646 P.2d 884 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
State v. Buelna 544 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
State v. Buelna 544 P.2d 238 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1975
It is true that probation is a matter of grace, not right
State v. Griggs 515 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Griggs 515 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Hunt, 13 Ariz.App.
State v. Settle 512 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Settle 512 P.2d 46 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Hunt, 13 Ariz.App.
State v. Postell 509 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Postell 509 P.2d 718 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Kennedy, supra; , ; State v. Phillips, 16 Ariz.App.
State v. Witt 508 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Witt 508 P.2d 105 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
333 , , State v. Phillips, 16 Ariz.App.
State v. Benton 507 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Benton 507 P.2d 135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Phillips, 16 Ariz.App.