Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wise, 795 P.2d 217.

30 citing documents.

State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Moore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
An excessive fine is “one that exceeds reasonable, usual, proper, or just 5 STATE v. MOORE Decision of the Court punishment.”
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Rice Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
§ 13-808(C); –78 (App. 1990) (holding legislature did not intend $150,000 to be “the absolute maximum that a convicted person could be compelled to pay”).
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Garcia Del Castillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
ted indigence—his fines are unconstitutionally excessive as well as cruel and unusual, violating both the United States and Arizona constitutions.1 Although Garcia Del Castillo argued only that the fines were unconstitutionally excessive at trial, he asserts we should also review for cruel and unusual punishment because the line between these violations “is frequently blurred.” -77 (App. 1990).
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Fingi Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
(concluding fine mandated by § 13-3408(E) not applicable to those convicted of attempt); , (citing Wise with approval).
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
Rogers v. Cota 219 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Rogers v. Cota 219 P.3d 254 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
-78 , -21 (App.1990) (holding legislature did not intend fine of $150,000 to be the absolute maximum a person convicted of a felony could be compelled to pay under A.R.S.
State v. Peek 195 P.3d 641 Ariz. 2008
State v. Peek 195 P.3d 641 Ariz. 2008
-83, -3 (App. 1990) (emphasis omitted); see also State v. Wise, 164 Ariz. 574, 578, (holding, for the same reason, that fine could not be imposed for attempts to commit the substantive offense).
State v. Russo 196 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. Russo 196 P.3d 826 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
While the prison assessment does not “implicate the cruel and unusual” clauses of the federal and state constitutions, as another monetary sanction might, “the excessive fines clause and the cruel and unusual clause are sometimes confused” and “frequently blurred.” -577 , -220 (App. 1990).
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams 171 P.3d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
(recognizing attempt to possess narcotic drugs is a violation of A.R.S.
State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Cornish 968 P.2d 606 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
For example, , this court held that a mandatory fíne should not have been imposed on a defendant who pleaded guilty to attempt to possess a narcotic drug.
Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency 854 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency 854 P.2d 1223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
this court held that sentencing guidelines and mandatory fines applicable to Chapter 34 crimes are not applicable to preparatory offenses.
State v. Lopez 853 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Lopez 853 P.2d 1126 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
as support for his contention that the trial court must consider defendant’s economic circumstances when imposing a fine.
State v. Delgadillo 850 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Delgadillo 850 P.2d 141 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
§ 13-3405(D) for marijuana convictions); -77 , -20 (App.1990) (Division 1 addressing A.R.S.
State v. Miller 844 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Miller 844 P.2d 588 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
A fine is excessive if it “exceeds reasonable, usual, proper, or just punishment,” , (citing People v. Saffore, 18 N.Y.2d 101, 104 , 271 N.Y.S.2d 972, 975 , 218 N.E.2d 686, 688 (1966)), if it is “so disproportionate to the offense that it shocks public sentiment and affronts the judgement of reasonable people,” id.