Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State of Arizona v. Albert Junior Lopez, 298 P.3d 909.

36 citing documents.

State v. McCartney 493 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. McCartney 493 P.3d 905 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Edmond Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Edmond Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. 1 The court granted the of-right petition in part as to restitution only
State of Arizona v. Brian K. Hancock 379 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State of Arizona v. Brian K. Hancock 379 P.3d 1024 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2016
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Johnson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-805(C)(1); -85, ¶ 15, -47 (App. 2014); ¶ 2, (holding imposition of criminal restitution order before defendant’s probation or sentence has expired constitutes an illegal sentence, which is fundamental, reversible error).
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Manuel Jesus Pesqueira 333 P.3d 797 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
§ 13-805(C),4 “the imposition of a CRO before the defendant’s probation or sentence has expired ‘constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’” 5 Therefore, because this portion of the sentencing minute entry is not authorized by statute, the CRO must be vacated.
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Esgardo Javier Nevarez 329 P.3d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
The imposition of such an order prior to the expiration of Nevarez’s sentence “‘constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’” 6 Accordingly, the CRO cannot stand.
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Reuben Renee Cota 319 P.3d 242 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
However, we vacate the criminal restitution order, in part, P.3d 909 (App. 2013): as to sentences imposed on or after April 1, 2013—the effective date of the 2012 amendments to A.R.S.
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Stephen Vincent Haverstick 318 P.3d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
11 STATE v. HAVERSTICK Opinion of the Court 561, ¶ 2
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Louis John Felix 317 P.3d 1185 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
court ordered that “all fines, fees, and/or assessments are reduced to a Criminal Restitution Order, with no interest, penalties or collection fees to accrue while [Felix] is in the Department of Corrections.” The trial court’s imposition of the CRO before the expiration of Felix’s sentence “‘constitute[d] an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’”
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Travis Hamilton Nereim 317 P.3d 646 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
§ 13-805 does not authorize the imposition of a CRO before the expiration of a defendant’s sentence 11 and such an order “’constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’”
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Miguel Francisco Inzunza 316 P.3d 1266 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
ties did not raise this issue on appeal, we have determined that in these circumstances “the imposition of a CRO before the defendant’s probation or sentence 15 STATE v. INZUNZA Opinion of the Court has expired ‘constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’”
State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres 314 P.3d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Carlos J. Torres 314 P.3d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
§ 13–805(C), 2 “the imposition of a CRO before the defendant’s probation or sentence has expired ‘constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’”
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angelino Paolo Buccheri-Bianca 312 P.3d 123 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
§ 13-805, and “‘constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’”7
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Daniel Andrew Snider 311 P.3d 656 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
“[T]he imposition of a CRO before the defendant’s probation or sentence has expired ‘constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’”
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Charles Glissendorf 311 P.3d 244 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 309 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Armando Pena, Jr. 309 P.3d 936 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
§ 13-805.5 Although Pena did not raise this claim below, “the imposition of a CRO before the defendant’s probation or sentence has expired ‘constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’”
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Angel Antonio Perez 308 P.3d 1189 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
§ 13-805(C), “the imposition of a CRO before the defendant’s probation or sentence has expired ‘constitutes an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’”
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
State of Arizona v. Robert Francisco Borquez 307 P.3d 51 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
t ordered that “all fines, fees, assessments and/or restitution [be] reduced to a Criminal Restitution Order, with no interest, penalties or collection fees to accrue while [Borquez] is in the Department of Corrections.” The imposition of a CRO before the expiration of Borquez’s sentence “‘constitute[d] an illegal sentence, which is necessarily fundamental, reversible error.’” quoting State v. Lewandowski, 220 Ariz. 531, ¶ 15