Cited by
Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re Stephanie B., 65 P.3d 114.
- In Re Delinquency of A.S. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
-
In Re Delinquency of A.S.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶8 To support a restitution order, evidence must show the victim suffered a loss that (1) is economic, (2) is “one that the victim would not have incurred but for the defendant’s criminal offense,” and (3) “directly result[s] from the defendant’s criminal conduct.” ¶ 10 (App. 2003) ( ¶ 7 (2002)).
- In Re Marissa C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- In Re Marissa C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- In Re: Gage K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- In Re: Gage K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- In Re Monteith C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- In Re Monteith C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- In Re Joseph L. 493 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- In Re Joseph L. 493 P.3d 268 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
- In Re Kaden V. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
-
In Re Kaden V.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
§ 8–344(A); ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
- State v. Cervantes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
State v. Cervantes
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
While a determination of the amount and entry of a restitution order is “part of the sentencing function,” -70, ¶ 15 (App. 2003) (citation omitted), “restitution is not a punishment exacted by the [S]tate,” Zaputil, 220 Ariz. at 428, ¶ 11, but a mechanism “to make victims whole for the economic losses they suffer from crimes.” ¶ 10 (App. 2014).
- In Re Jesus C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
In Re Jesus C.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
3 In re JESUS C. Decision of the Court ¶8 The superior court has discretion to fashion an award, in light of the circumstances presented and proven by a preponderance of the evidence, in an amount sufficient “to make the victim whole.” ¶ 20 (App. 2002); ¶ 15 (App. 2003).
- In Re Brandon M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
-
In Re Brandon M.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
We will affirm the order if it bears a reasonable relationship to the victim’s loss, ¶ 20 (App. 2002), and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, ¶ 15 (App. 2003).
- In Re Reynaldo P. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
-
In Re Reynaldo P.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
§ 8- 344(A) (2018); ¶ 16 (App. 2003).
- State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- State v. Zamora Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
- In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- In Re Cheyenne H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
- 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. Tittle Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
-
State v. Tittle
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
“The burden of proof applicable to restitution is proof by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 15
- 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
- State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
- State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
- In Re Brendan G. 212 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- In Re Brendan G. 212 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
- Mein Ex Rel. Mein v. Cook 193 P.3d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
-
Mein Ex Rel. Mein v. Cook
193 P.3d 790
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
Co., , ("Therefore, while a plaintiff may collect compensatory damages upon proof by a preponderance of the evidence of his injuries due to the tort of another, we conclude that recovery of punitive damages should be awardable only upon clear and convincing evidence of the defendant’s evil mind.”); ¶ 16 , ("That differing burdens of proof can make a substantive difference is illustrated by the situation, not uncommon in our jurisprudence, in which an individual may be found not guilty of a parti
- State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-
State v. Guadagni
178 P.3d 473
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
-18 (App.2003); , , -71 , -91 (App.1978).
- In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
-
In Re Andrew C.
160 P.3d 687
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 16 Although a number of our cases apply the statutory definition of economic loss, none deal with the issue posed by equating “any loss” with “economic loss.” See, e.g., William L., 211 Ariz. at 239, ¶¶ 11-13 , 119 P.3d at 1042 ; -52, ¶¶ 9-12 , -89 (App.2004); ¶¶ 10-13
- Willie G. & Bonnie H. v. Ades, Nycole G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-
Willie G. & Bonnie H. v. Ades, Nycole G.
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(determination of restitution award); William Z. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.
- In Re William L. 119 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
- In Re William L. 119 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
- Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security 119 P.3d 1034 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
-
Willie G. v. Arizona Department of Economic Security
119 P.3d 1034
Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
(determination of restitution award); William Z. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Econ.