Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Garcia, 860 P.2d 498.

28 citing documents.

State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Hopson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Gilmore Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
(finding that citations in the charging document did not set out facts that “alter[ed] the substance of the 3 STATE v. GILMORE Decision of the Court crime charged”).
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
The state must establish restitution by a preponderance of the evidence, and it may only be imposed “on charges for which a defendant has been found guilty, to which he has admitted, or for which he has agreed to pay,”
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State v. Mason 238 P.3d 134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
5 ¶ 9 But “being an accomplice is not a separately chargeable offense; it is merely a theory that the state may utilize to establish the commission of a substantive criminal offense.”
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
4 ¶ 7 A trial court, however, “may impose restitution only on charges for which a defendant has been found guilty, to which he has admitted, or for which he has agreed to pay.”
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Jerry C. 151 P.3d 553 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
“In cases holding that lesser offenses were described by a charging document, courts have focused on language that explicitly alleged the defendant’s conduct or mental state.”
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Griffin 58 P.3d 516 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
“A court may impose restitution only on charges for which a defendant has been found guilty, to which he has admitted, or for which he has agreed to pay.”
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Marshall 4 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Adams 941 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Adams 941 P.2d 908 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jones 937 P.2d 1182 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
This court rejected a , and held that A.R.S.
State v. Jackson 924 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Jackson 924 P.2d 494 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
State v. Nieto 924 P.2d 453 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
(defendant who was driver of car in drive-by shooting liable for aggravated assault on accomplice theory).
Espinoza v. Superior Court 886 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
State v. Scott 865 P.2d 792 Ariz. 1993
Espinoza v. Superior Court 886 P.2d 1364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993