Cited by

“This court will uphold the superior court’s ‘finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 3 (1999)).

Because the trial court is in the best position to consider the evidence, this Court will uphold the court’s probation violation finding unless it is “arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of the evidence.” ¶ 3 (App. 1999).

We will uphold a trial court’s probation violation finding “unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3 (App. 1999).

¶ 3 (App. 1999) (citation omitted).

“This court will uphold the superior court’s ‘finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.’” ¶ 14 (App. 2008) ( ¶ 3 (1999)).

robation officer if an issue with Interstate Compact arose, and probation did not modify the conditions in writing to allow this directive.1 We review the court’s decision to revoke probation for abuse of discretion, and will uphold the court’s violation findings unless they are “arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence,” ¶ 3 (App. 1999).

See Vaughn, 217 Ariz. at 521, ¶ 14 (“This court will uphold the superior court’s ‘finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.’”) ( ¶ 3 (App. 1999)); Ariz. R. Crim.

Decision of the Court DISCUSSION ¶5 We review juvenile delinquency adjudications for an abuse of discretion, ¶ 16 (App. 2002), and “will uphold a trial court’s finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3 (App. 1999).

State v. Thomas , , ¶ 1, ; Goddard v. Superior Court , , ¶ 9

P. 27.8(e); ¶ 14 (App. 2008) (“This court will uphold the superior court’s ‘finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.’”) ( ¶ 3 (1999)).

See Vaughn, 217 Ariz. at 521, ¶ 14 (“This court will uphold the superior court’s ‘finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.’”) ( ¶ 3 (1999)).

P. 27.8(b)(3), and the superior court’s finding of a violation will be upheld “unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3

“We will uphold a trial court’s finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3 (App. 1999).

A. There is sufficient evidence of Nash’s violation of Condition 10 ¶21 “We will uphold a trial court’s finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3 (App. 1999).

STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶7 “We will uphold a trial court’s finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3

The trial court’s findings will be upheld “unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3 (App. 1999).

“We will uphold a trial court’s finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3

¶ 14 This court will uphold the superior court’s “finding that a probationer has violated probation unless the finding is arbitrary or unsupported by any theory of evidence.” ¶ 3

Subsection (E) provides that probation violations must be addressed through additional conditions and sanctions “short of incarceration.” ¶ 7 , (holding that first- or second-time offenders on probation under Proposition 200 could not be sentenced to prison after violating intensive probation); ¶ 7 , (indicating that the language of subsection (E) is “clear and unequivocal”).