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. Whitney, 726 P.2d 210.

33 citing documents.

  • State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Leal 455 P.3d 327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    § 13-603(C) for damage caused by defendant); –1 (App. 1985) (without citing A.R.S.
  • In Re J.U. 384 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • In Re J.U. 384 P.3d 839 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
  • State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Skinner Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    Notwithstanding those arguments, “an illegal sentence can be reversed on appeal despite the lack of an objection.” ¶10, ( ); ¶ 18, (“Imposition of an illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error that may be reversed on appeal, despite the lack of an objection in the trial court.”) (citing cases).
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
  • State of Arizona v. Jose Raymond Alvarez 269 P.3d 1203 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
    ¶ 20 , for the proposition that a defendant’s conduct in stealing a ear was too attenuated from conduct of later colliding with another vehicle.
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
  • State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
    “A court may impose restitution only on charges for which a defendant has been found guilty, to which he has admitted, or for which he has agreed to pay.”
  • State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Canion 16 P.3d 788 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • In Re Erika V. 983 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Erika V. 983 P.2d 768 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    (motel owner could not obtain restitution from defendant convicted of sexual assault for damages to motel room incurred during the sexual assault); , (third party who suffered damages in collision with stolen ear could not *401 recover restitution from defendant who pled guilty to car theft).
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676 868 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
  • In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-128676 868 P.2d 365 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
    (motel owner was not victim of crime of sexual assault and thus was not entitled to restitution for damages to motel room incurred during course of sexual assault); , (defendant who pled *354 guilty to car theft not liable for restitution to third party who suffered damages in collision with stolen car).
  • State v. Foy 859 P.2d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Foy 859 P.2d 789 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Zierden 828 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Zierden 828 P.2d 180 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    to pay restitution 'only for an offense that he has admitted, upon which he has been found guilty, or upon which he has agreed to pay restitution.’ ” , ( , ) (second emphasis added).
  • 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
  • State v. Rios 817 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Rios 817 P.2d 53 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Ferguson 798 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Ferguson 798 P.2d 413 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. French 801 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. French 801 P.2d 482 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    We consistently have held that a defendant may be ordered to pay restitution “only for an offense that he has admitted, upon which he has been found guilty, or upon which he has agreed to pay restitution.” , (emphasis added)
  • State v. Bouchier 767 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Bouchier 767 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1987