DocketDrift

Real-time tracking of state judicial trends.

Outcomes

Public record · Human review · No verdicts asserted

Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Howard, 785 P.2d 1235.

46 citing documents.

  • State v. Patel 452 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • State v. Patel 452 P.3d 712 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    (noting that “[r]estitution, both as reparation to the victim and as part of the rehabilitation of the offender, has been a part of the criminal justice system for a long time.”); (explaining “restitution is to make the victim whole”).
  • State v. Morris 435 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
  • State v. Morris 435 P.3d 1060 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2019
    State v. Aleman , , ¶ 15, (quoting State v. Howard , , 50, , 1238 (App. 1989) ).
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
  • State of Arizona v. Daniel Alberto Reyes 364 P.3d 1134 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2015
    Aleman, (noting “pertinent Arizona cases clearly refute” argument that there were no exigent circumstances justifying medical blood draw); (declining invitation to address Cocio because court of appeals is “bound by our supreme court’s determinations”); (finding exigent circumstances argument failed due to Cocio).
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State v. Garcia Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. William Peter Moran 307 P.3d 95 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    “We will review the facts in the light most favorable to the trial court’s ruling and will not disturb it absent clear and manifest error.” State v. Howard, 163 Ariz. 47, 49
  • State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
  • State v. ZAPUTIL 207 P.3d 678 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2008
    Id.; , (holding that because restitution is not punishment, unlike criminal penalties, restitution order survives death of defendant); , (noting “restitution is not intended to be punitive in nature”); , (“The purpose of mandatory restitution is to make the victim whole, not to punish.”); but cf A.R.S.
  • TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
  • TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
    See William L., 211 Ariz. at 239, ¶ 12, 119 P.3d at 1042
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
  • State of Arizona v. Jesus Antonio Aleman Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2005
    DISCUSSION I. Motion to suppress ¶8 “We review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress for clear and manifest error.” -57 (App. 2000)
  • State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • State v. Paxson 49 P.3d 310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
    (defendant collided with disabled vehicle being pushed by victim); , (defendant rear-ended car in which victim was riding).
  • State v. Wilkinson 39 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2002
  • State v. Wilkinson 39 P.3d 1131 Ariz. 2002
  • In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • In Re Ryan A. 39 P.3d 543 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
  • Matter of Estate of Vigliotto 870 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • Matter of Estate of Vigliotto 870 P.2d 1163 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1993
  • State v. Pitts 870 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Pitts 870 P.2d 1155 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    (death of victim is a proper aggravating factor for a negligent homicide conviction); , (death of victim and use of a deadly weapon are appropriate aggravating factors for a second degree murder conviction); State v.
  • State v. Freeman 848 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
  • State v. Freeman 848 P.2d 882 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
    The objectives of mandatory restitution are both reparative and rehabilitative in nature: to make the victim whole, , and to make the offender “recognize the specific consequences of his criminal activity and accept responsibility for those consequences,”
  • State v. Steffy 839 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Steffy 839 P.2d 1135 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    See, , (“the purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, not to punish”); Iniguez, 169 Ariz. at 535 , 821 P.2d at 197 (“Because a primary purpose of restitution is to make the victim whole, and the other aim of restitution is rehabilitative rather than punitive, payment beyond tha
  • State v. Swanson 838 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Swanson 838 P.2d 1340 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Lara 830 P.2d 803 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Ellis 838 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Ellis 838 P.2d 1310 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Howard 815 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Howard 815 P.2d 5 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    Thus, these statutes establish that “[t]he purpose of mandatory restitution is to make the victim whole, not to punish.”
  • State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Perez Lara 823 P.2d 70 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    (death of victim is an appropriate aggravating factor for a second degree murder sentence); , (same); , (death of victim is a proper aggravating factor for negligent homicide).
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Iniguez 821 P.2d 194 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Kemp 802 P.2d 1038 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990