Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite In Re the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3, 650 P.2d 1278.

24 citing documents.

State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
State v. Padilla Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Action No. J-20705-3, (court has inherent power to impose probation terms that control a probationer’s behavior “to attempt the rehabilitation of the [probationer] and to protect society from further [criminal] acts.”).
In Re Marbella P. 221 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Marbella P. 221 P.3d 38 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
Action No. J-20705-3, , see also Ariz. R.P.
In Re Themika M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
In Re Themika M. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
P.2d 1258 (App. 1998) (lack of express authority allowing juvenile court to require fingerprinting as condition of probation did not preclude court’s doing so); In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3, P.2d 1278 (App. 1982) (juvenile court has inherent power to impose conditions of probation, even though no statute grants specific authority).
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Miguel R. 63 P.3d 1065 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
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
Action No. J-20705-3, , see A.R.S.
In Re John G. 953 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
In Re John G. 953 P.2d 1258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1998
“A condition of probation which does not violate basic fundamental rights and bears a relationship to the purpose of probation will not be disturbed on appeal.” Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3
In Re Abraham F. 947 P.2d 1368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Gerald F. 945 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Arizona Department of Economic Security v. Gerald F. 945 P.2d 1321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1997
Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3, , (Juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by ordering weekend detention as a condition of probation even though A.R.S.
In re the Maricopa County Juvenile Action 938 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
In re the Maricopa County Juvenile Action 938 P.2d 67 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
See In re Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3, , (a term of probation must be reasonably related to the purpose of probation).
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-508801 901 P.2d 1205 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-510312 901 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
Matter of Appeal in Maricopa Cty., No. Jv-510312 901 P.2d 464 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
“A condition of probation which does not violate basic fundamental rights and bears a relationship to the purpose of probation will not be disturbed on appeal.” Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3
In re the Appeal in Navajo County, Juvenile Action No. 92-J-040 885 P.2d 1127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In re the Appeal in Navajo County, Juvenile Action No. 92-J-040 885 P.2d 1127 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1994
In reaching this decision, we rely on In the Matter of the Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-503009 830 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-503009 830 P.2d 484 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
“A condition of probation which does not violate basic fundamental rights and bears a relationship to the purpose of probation will not be disturbed on appeal.” In re Appeal in Pima County Juvenile Action No. J-20705-3

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by