DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Contreras, 885 P.2d 138.

48 citing documents.

  • State v. Campo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    the record must contain evidence that the probationer violated a condition of probation upon which to base the burden.” (“[R]ecent decisions of this court and a constitutional amendment on the subject of restitution have called the holding of Burton into question.”); but see A.R.S.
  • State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Montgomery Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    See Dean, 226 Ariz. at 51, ¶ 11
  • In Re Delinquency of T.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • In Re Delinquency of T.L. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    ¶ 9 n.2 (App. 2012) (modifying a sentencing minute entry that incorrectly noted the defendant was convicted of a completed offense, rather than the attempted offense, when the court was able “to ascertain the trial court’s intent from the record”); n.2 (App. 1994) (“When we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary.”); –24, ¶¶ 12–17 (App. 2007) (citing Contreras while recognizing an appellate court’s ability to resolve r
  • State v. Dazen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
  • State v. Dazen Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
    n.2 (App. 1994) (“When we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary.”).
  • State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Shervington Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
    “When we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary.” ¶ 24 (App. 2016) ( n.2 (App. 1994)).
  • In Re Brima T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • In Re Brima T. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    n.2 (App. 4 IN RE BRIMA T. Decision of the Court 1994) (“When we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary.” (citation omitted)).
  • State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
  • State v. Salazar Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
    ¶ 7 (App. 2016) (“When there is a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral statements at a sentencing hearing and its written minute entry, the oral statements control.”) (citation omitted); n.2 (App. 1994) (“When we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary.”).
  • State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Woods Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    In a situation where, as here, the sentencing court imposed an unlawful sentence “and we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record,” n.2 (App. 1994), we will use our authority under A.R.S.
  • State v. Moraga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Moraga Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. James 372 P.3d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. James 372 P.3d 311 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    n.1 (1990); n.2 (App. 1994) (“When we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary.”).
  • Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    -54, -42 (App. 1994) (internal citations omitted).
  • State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
  • State v. Neese 366 P.3d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
    n.2 (App. 1994) (“When we are able to ascertain the trial court’s intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary.”).
  • State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Hon kreamer/magee Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“When the trial court suspends sentence and orders probation, the sentence is not final.
  • State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • State v. Dean 243 P.3d 1029 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2010
  • In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • In Re James P. 153 P.3d 1049 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    for the proposition that this court may correct a discrepancy in the record rather than remand to the trial court.
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Emanuel Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
  • State of Arizona v. Richard Emanuel Ray Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
    P.2d 138 (App. 1994); (“Probation is a judicial order allowing a criminal defendant a period of time in which to perform certain conditions and thereby avoid imposition of a sentence.”).
  • In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
  • In Re Alton D. 994 P.2d 402 Ariz. 2000
  • 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
    ¶ 6 , this court held that a trial court may modify probation to impose restitution after probation is ordered and in the absence of grounds supporting revocation.
  • In re J.G. 993 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In re J.G. 993 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    P. 27.2; , see also Maricopa County Juv.
  • In Re JG 993 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re JG 993 P.2d 1055 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
    P. 27.2; , see also Maricopa County Juv.
  • In Re Joe S. 975 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Joe S. 975 P.2d 149 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Alton D. 970 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Alton D. 970 P.2d 452 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
  • In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • In Re Frank H. 973 P.2d 1194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
  • State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
  • State v. Korzuch 920 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1996