Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Howard, 815 P.2d 5.

27 citing documents.

State v. Davis Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
¶14 Davis argues the restitution award for the costs of raising the children was error because “the majority of the claims are for future expenses.” However, “future economic losses, including lost earnings, can be awarded as restitution if they satisfy the Wilkinson test.” E.H., 259 Ariz. at 382 ¶ 14; -60 (App. 1991) (affirming restitution order for future medical care and future lost wages; noting “restitution for economic losses of the victim yet to be incurred at the time of sentencing” is p
E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
E. H. v. Hon. Slayton 568 P.3d 377 Ariz. 2025
G.F. v. Hon. Nielson 556 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
G.F. v. Hon. Nielson 556 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
E.H. v. Hon Slayton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
E.H. v. Hon Slayton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
This “includes not only those losses incurred at the time of sentencing, but also those losses reasonably anticipated to be incurred in the future as a result of the defendant’s actions.”
In Re Marissa C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Marissa C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Cervantes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Cervantes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-60 (App. 1991) (upholding a restitution award for future medical expenses, reasoning that including only the expenses already incurred by the victim at the time of sentencing would fail to make the victim “whole”); -70 (App. 1993) (holding the rights of a crime victi
In Re Jesus C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In Re Jesus C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Lindsley 953 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Lindsley 953 P.2d 1248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Wilson 914 P.2d 1346 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
We will uphold the restitution award if it bears a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss, , and the state need only present enough evidence to show that relationship
State v. Steffy 839 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Steffy 839 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
See, , (restitution order included amounts estimated for victim’s future medical expenses and future lost wages); , (amount of restitution for stolen property must be reduced by value of items police had recovered and returned to victims).
State v. Reynolds 832 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Reynolds 832 P.2d 695 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
section 13-603(C) “reflects its sense of responsibility for victims.” , ( , ).
State v. Young 842 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Young 842 P.2d 1300 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992