Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wideman, 798 P.2d 1373.

38 citing documents.

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
Reed, 252 Ariz. at 332, ¶ 18 (affirming restitution order for defendant to cover mental health counseling and therapy costs for victim of a sexual crime); (awarding a victim’s family restitution for mental health counseling expenses).
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Alvarez Bojorquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
Nothing in either of those cases conflicts with or undermines the well-established rule that when, as here, “the presumptive sentence is imposed, no findings as to aggravation or mitigation are required.” ().
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
See Wilkinson, 202 Ariz. at 29 ¶ 9; (allowing restitution to murder victim’s family for mental health counseling expenses).
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
¶ 18 (App. 2020) (“[T]he sentencing order’s contemplation of restitution for post-sentencing counseling expenses was not erroneous.”); (“The trial court correctly awarded restitution for mental health counseling expenses.”).
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
In State v. Wideman, for example, this court held that to impose restitution, expenses for mental- health counseling for a murdered victim’s immediate family were “directly attributable to the victim’s death.”
State of Arizona v. Patrick James Soriano 176 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State of Arizona v. Patrick James Soriano 176 P.3d 44 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Madrid 85 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Madrid 85 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
First, he argues, , that the victim’s three children were not entitled to receive any restitution whatsoever because their attendance at the trial of their mother’s murderer was “voluntary.” 2 Second, Madrid claims that the trial court further erred by approving as part of the restitution award a per diem food
State v. Monaco 83 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State v. Monaco 83 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
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. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Williams 898 P.2d 497 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Sasak 871 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Sasak 871 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Sexton 859 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Sexton 859 P.2d 794 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
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
(loss of travel expenses do not flow from the acts to which the defen *171 dant pled guilty; therefore, they are consequential damages).
State v. Baltzell 857 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Baltzell 857 P.2d 1291 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(improper to award travel expenses when appearance of victim’s family at court proceedings was voluntary).
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
at 46, 47; Pearce, 156 Ariz. at 289-290 , 751 P.2d at 605-606
State v. Prieto 836 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Prieto 836 P.2d 1008 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
(victim of sexual assault may recover moving expense necessary to restore peace of mind); , (allowing recovery for mental health counseling).
State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Brady 819 P.2d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Brady 819 P.2d 1033 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 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