Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Steffy, 839 P.2d 1135.

32 citing documents.

State v. Bartik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bartik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Rogers Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
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
See, (holding superior “court did not err in ordering payment of restitution for the unpaid medical expenses to the victim even though future reimbursement may be paid by an insurer who has not sought reimbursement”); State v. Howard, 168 Ariz. 8
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
§ 13-804(G) (court to hold a hearing if there is not “sufficient evidence to support a finding of the amount of restitution or the manner in which the restitution should be paid”); (defendant waived right to a restitution hearing by “his explicit waiver at sentencing and by counsel’s failure to object to the amount imposed”).
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶6 This court has previously noted that “because restitution is not intended to be punitive in nature, we have attempted to prevent situations where payment beyond full compensation would create a ‘windfall’ to the victim.”
In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
In re Marriage of Peck 395 P.3d 734 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2017
(addressing merits of waived issue partially “in the interests of judicial economy”); , (addressing merits of issue not raised below partially because ap-pellee had not argued waiver).
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Mercer Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
§§ 13- 603(C), -804(B); and the court did so.
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. James Charles Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
(in analogous situation, defendant has due process right to contest evidence supporting restitution amount).
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
Id.; , (holding that because restitution is not punishment, unlike criminal penalties, restitution order survives death of defendant); , (noting “restitution is not intended to be punitive in nature”); , (“The purpose of mandatory restitution is to make the victim whole, not to punish.”); but cf A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Michael Manuel Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
State of Arizona v. Michael Manuel Dixon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2007
1138 (App. 1992) (defendant may object at time of sentencing to amount of restitution or request hearing on issue).
In Re Devon G. 990 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Devon G. 990 P.2d 663 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Kory L. 979 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
In Re Kory L. 979 P.2d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
Because of these separate issues and orders, we hold that, just as a defendant has a due process right to contest restitution, , so, too, does a parent whose restitution liability is based on section 8-341(H).
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Colosi 977 P.2d 836 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
State v. Proctor 2 P.3d 647 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
As support for this argument, it cites, inter alia, , (defendant liable for all losses resulting from criminal offense even if victim does not request restitution).
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Contreras 885 P.2d 138 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
State v. Freeman 848 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Freeman 848 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993