Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Fancher, 818 P.2d 251.

49 citing documents.

State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
“So long as the procedure leading to a restitution award is such that [a] defendant is given the opportunity to contest the information on which the restitution award is based, to present relevant evidence, and to be heard, due process is satisfied.”
In Re Marissa C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Marissa C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
At a restitution hearing, the individual from whom restitution is sought must be “given the opportunity to contest the information on which the restitution award is based, to present relevant evidence, and to be heard.” (criminal case).
E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
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 Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
In Re Kalib A. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
n.1 (App. 1990) (noting that the court can consider additional evidence in resentencing hearing); (“The determination of the amount of restitution is part of the sentencing function of the court .
In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Grijalva 392 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Grijalva 392 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
State v. Fancher, 169 Ariz, 266, 266 n.1, , 251 n.1 (App. 1991).
State of Arizona v. Summer Lynn Leon 381 P.3d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Summer Lynn Leon 381 P.3d 286 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
466, ¶ 13, (“Restitution is not meant to penalize the defendant; that function is served by incarceration, fines, or probation.”); (purpose of restitution not to punish); (“restitution is not a penalty or a disability”); (restitution to victim of crime is not criminal punishment exacted by the state).
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
See United States v. McMichael, 699 F.2d 193, 195 (4th Cir. 1983) (upholding a restitution order in an amount greater than the total amount the defendant was accused of embezzling in the indictment); (recognizing that “restitution orders in excess of amounts alleged in charging documents on which convictions were based have been affirmed” (citation omitted)); ¶ 14, (stating that “the restitution statutes
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano 323 P.3d 774 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
§ 13- 805(A) (granting trial court jurisdiction to make certain payment- related orders); n.1, n.1 (App. 1991) (noting restitution order separately appealable, despite general public policy).
State v. Morales-Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morales-Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Due process entitles a defendant to “the opportunity to contest the information on which the restitution award is based, to present relevant evidence, and to be heard.”
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
266 n. 1, , 251 n. 1 (App.1991); see also Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
In Re Stephanie B. 65 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Stephanie B. 65 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
(citations omitted) (emphasis added).
In Re Andrew A. 58 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Andrew A. 58 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
State v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Wilkinson 10 P.3d 634 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Terpstra 546 N.W.2d 280 Minn. 1996
State v. Tackman 902 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Tackman 902 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
Matter of Estate of Vigliotto 870 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
Matter of Estate of Vigliotto 870 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Duzan 862 P.2d 223 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Blanton 844 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Blanton 844 P.2d 1167 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
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
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
State v. O'CONNOR 827 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. O'CONNOR 827 P.2d 480 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Lewus 825 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
State v. Lewus 825 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In a recent case, , we discussed the due process considerations surrounding a restitution order.