Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lewis, 214 P.3d 409.

62 citing documents.

State v. Alicajic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Alicajic Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Plaza-Uzeta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
State v. Plaza-Uzeta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
And “[e]ven a driver who fires no weapon can be found guilty as an accomplice to drive-by shooting.” ¶ 10 n.5 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).
State v. Plaza-Uzeta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
State v. Plaza-Uzeta Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
And “[e]ven a driver who fires no weapon can be found guilty as an accomplice to drive-by shooting.” ¶ 10 n.5 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).
G.F. v. Hon. Nielson 556 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
G.F. v. Hon. Nielson 556 P.3d 1220 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Sy Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Blomdahl Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Grigsby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
State v. Grigsby Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
But viewing the facts and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court’s restitution order, ¶ 2 (2009), the trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the restitution amount.
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed 502 P.3d 979 Ariz. 2022
¶ 58 (2015) ( ¶¶ 2, 5 (App. 2009)).
State v. Bartik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Bartik Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
§ 13-804(F); -27, ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (noting that two participants in criminal conduct can be held liable if either or both caused the loss).
In Re Brigham H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Brigham H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶20 “The State has the burden of proving a restitution claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 7 (App. 2009).
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Matzdorff Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Tommy G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
In Re Tommy G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
¶12 “The state has the burden of proving a restitution claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 7 (App. 2009).
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Reed 483 P.3d 221 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Bartels Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
"We view the facts and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to upholding the trial court's restitution order," ¶ 2 (App. 2009), but review questions of law de novo, Linares, 241 Ariz. at 418, ¶ 6.
In Re Braden C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
In Re Braden C. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Quijada 439 P.3d 815 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Mullet Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶5 “Generally, we review a restitution order for an abuse of discretion” viewing “the evidence bearing on a restitution claim in the light most favorable to sustaining the court’s order.”
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Jackson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
¶ 2 (App. 2009) ( ¶ 5 (App. 2002)).
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Marquez Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Calderon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
“The state has the burden of proving a restitution claim by a preponderance of the evidence.” ¶ 7 (App. 2009).
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Hayes Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Linares 388 P.3d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
State v. Linares 388 P.3d 566 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2017
¶ 5 (App. 2009) (citations omitted).
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
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Brooks Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
A defendant “may be held responsible for all of the damage or loss caused to a victim where criminal conduct was undertaken in concert with others.” ¶ 18 (App. 2009) (citation omitted).
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
State of Arizona v. Andre Michael Leteve 354 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2015
Reviewing the facts in the light most favorable to upholding the order, ¶¶ 2, 5, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.