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. Bouchier, 767 P.2d 233.

36 citing documents.

  • State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    pp. 1990) (defendant entitled to presentence incarceration credit for a mandatory prison term condition of probation under statute granting credit to defendants “sentenced to imprisonment”); (Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 24.3, which permits a trial court to correct “unlawful sentence,” applies to the imposition of probation); –48 (App. 1989) (illegal term of probation is fundamental error “as is an illegal sentence,” and may be modified by an appellate court under A.R.S.
  • State v. Skala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Skala Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    P.2d 233 (App. 1989), which had interpreted an earlier version of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) section 13-902 (1987), Skala claimed that lifetime probation violated A.R.S.
  • State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    er waived four issues because he did not raise them in superior court); (reviewing for fundamental error and finding none in appeal from disposition continuing probation with additional conditions; probationer challenged imposition of additional condition on appeal but waived the issue because did not object in superior court); -48 (App. 1989) (finding waived claim that defendant is not subject to sex offender registration as condition of probation because failure to timely object in superior co
  • State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    -66, ¶9, -33 (2001) (party who invites error waives any challenge to results); (probationer waived objections to sex offender registration by failing to object to them).
  • State v. Burns 298 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
  • State v. Burns 298 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
    While probation technically is not a sentence, Coy, 200 Ariz. at 443, ¶ 3, n. 2 , 27 P.3d at 800 , an illegal term of probation constitutes fundamental error equivalent to an illegal sentence, ¶ 10 , ( , ).
  • State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
  • State of Arizona v. Jerry Don Bryant Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    162 Ariz. at 326-27, 783 P.2d at 265-66; see also Dawson, (citing Vargas-Burgos for proposition that illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error); (illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error); (same).
  • State v. Bryant 200 P.3d 1011 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
    162 Ariz. at 326-27, 783 P.2d at 265-66; see also Dawson, , (citing Vargas-Burgos for proposition that illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error); , (illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error); , (same).
  • Jackson v. Schneider 86 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • Jackson v. Schneider 86 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Cox 37 P.3d 437 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    An illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error, , that will be reversed on appeal despite a lack of objection in the trial court.
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • State v. Bass 31 P.3d 857 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Coy v. Fields 27 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Coy v. Fields 27 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    (probationary term exceeding that permitted by statute is fundamental error, equivalent to illegal prison sentence).
  • State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
  • State v. Miranda 10 P.3d 1213 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
    (imposition of illegal sentence constitutes fundamental error).
  • State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Brown 952 P.2d 746 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Sandoval 857 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Sandoval 857 P.2d 395 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Tellez 799 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Tellez 799 P.2d 1 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    to support this proposition.
  • State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Lammie 793 P.2d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    cf. State v. Tellez, 49 Ariz. Adv.Rep.