Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Crowder, 440 P.2d 29.

35 citing documents.

State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
“To remain at liberty under a suspended sentence is not a matter of right but a matter of [legislative] grace.” ()
State v. Lemole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Lemole Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
State v. Kessler 13 P.3d 1200 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2000
“To remain at liberty under a suspended sentence is not a matter of right but a matter of grace.”
State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
State v. Rowe 569 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1977
State v. Rowe 569 P.2d 225 Ariz. 1977
State v. Fuentes 549 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
State v. Fuentes 549 P.2d 224 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1976
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-74449A 511 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County, Juvenile Action No. J-74449A 511 P.2d 693 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Street, 11 Ariz.App.
State v. Curry 511 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1973
State v. Curry 511 P.2d 625 Ariz. 1973
2292 , 36 L.Ed.2d 971 (1973)
State v. Madrid 510 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Madrid 510 P.2d 50 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Streett, 11 Ariz.App.
State v. Pietsch 508 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1973
State v. Pietsch 508 P.2d 337 Ariz. 1973
Also, it should be noted that the punishment flowing as a result of probation being revoked is not punishment for the probationary breach, but is instead punishment on the original charge, , ; so it is apparent that double jeopardy is not involved here.
State v. Sanchez 506 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Sanchez 506 P.2d 644 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1973
State v. Goodloe, supra.
State v. Moore 502 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1972
State v. Moore 502 P.2d 1351 Ariz. 1972
we held that where no objection was made by the defendant to proceeding to trial without a reporter, he waives his right to thereafter complain that the proceedings were not reported.
Benson v. State ex rel. Eyman 502 P.2d 1332 Ariz. 1972
Benson v. State ex rel. Eyman 502 P.2d 1332 Ariz. 1972
State v. Jackson 494 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Jackson 494 P.2d 376 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1972
State v. Goodloe 483 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1971
State v. Goodloe 483 P.2d 556 Ariz. 1971
State v. Maxwell, supra.
State v. Burrell 471 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1970
State v. Burrell 471 P.2d 712 Ariz. 1970
we said: “We know of no authority holding that due process of law requires that all criminal trials be stenographically reported * * *.
State v. Walter 469 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Walter 469 P.2d 848 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1970
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969
State v. Streett 463 P.2d 106 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1969