Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Green v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 647 P.2d 166.

34 citing documents.

Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state 347 P.3d 136 Ariz. 2015
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state 347 P.3d 136 Ariz. 2015
¶11 “When granting probation, the trial court has only that authority given by the statutes of Arizona.” see also Green v. Superior Court (State), (to same effect).
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona 332 P.3d 587 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
But, because probation is a matter of “legislative grace,” a “court’s power with respect to probation is purely statutory.”
State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Simon 270 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State v. Simon 270 P.3d 887 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
See Kelley v. Ariz. Dep’t of Corrections, -77 , -5 (1987)
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Special Actions 1(a), 17B A.R.S.; , (remedy by appeal inadequate because “[n]o matter how much the appeal might be expedited, petitioner would have served at least a substantial part of ...
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
See Ariz. R. P. Special Actions 1(a), 17B A.R.S.; see also Green v. Superior Court, 132 Ariz. 468, 470, (remedy by appeal inadequate because “[n]o matter how much the appeal might be expedited, petitioner would have served at least a substantial part of .
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
Cronin v. Sheldon 991 P.2d 231 Ariz. 1999
I. Special Action Jurisdiction ¶ 2 We accept special action jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 4(a), Rules of Procedure for Special Actions, but we emphasize that “[djirect filing in [the Supreme Court] is exceptional....”
State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
State v. Quintana 987 P.2d 811 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1999
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
(statute prohibits actual confinement for period in excess of one year), , (under § 13-901(F), “court could have imposed up to one year of imprisonment as condition of probation”).
State v. Korzuch 920 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1996
State v. Korzuch 920 P.2d 312 Ariz. 1996
(“[T]he discretionary power given the sentencing court to impose, modify, or revoke probation is limited by several statutory provisions, as well as constitutional due process considerations.”) (footnote omitted).
State v. Reynolds 816 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Reynolds 816 P.2d 237 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
In so doing, , which held that credit must be allowed for time a defendant spends on work furlough or authorized release if the defendant is in such status while serving a jail sentence.
State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Nieuwenhuis v. Kelly 795 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
Nieuwenhuis v. Kelly 795 P.2d 823 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS Although trial courts clearly have authority to modify probation terms, due process imposes limitations on the kinds of modifications that can be made, , and in this case, we believe, requires a hearing.
State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Rutherford 744 P.2d 13 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
Kelley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 744 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1987
Kelley v. Arizona Department of Corrections 744 P.2d 3 Ariz. 1987
State v. Vasquez 736 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Vasquez 736 P.2d 803 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
§§ 13-605, 13-606 and 31-335; , (credit allowed for time spent in jail as a condition of probation includes time spent on work furlough or authorized release).
State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
State v. Stotts 695 P.2d 1110 Ariz. 1985
Burton v. Superior Court, 27 Ariz.App.