Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Coy v. Fields, 27 P.3d 799.

51 citing documents.

State of Arizona v. Bennett Laquan Williams 553 P.3d 161 Ariz. 2024
State of Arizona v. Bennett Laquan Williams 553 P.3d 161 Ariz. 2024
Therefore, “[p]lea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract interpretation.” ¶ 9 (App. 2001).
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
State v. Williams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2023
¶ 10 (App. 2001) (vacating order setting aside a plea agreement, where an impermissible probation option did not “materially alter[] the plea agreement”).
In Re Joseph G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
In Re Joseph G. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2022
Plea agreements are “contractual in nature” and “subject to contract interpretation.” ¶ 9 (App. 2001).
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State v. Begay Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2021
State of Arizona v. Demitres Robertson 468 P.3d 1217 Ariz. 2020
State of Arizona v. Demitres Robertson 468 P.3d 1217 Ariz. 2020
See, ¶ 12 (App. 2001) (“The State is generally in the better position to know the correct law .
State v. Lele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
State v. Lele Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
–46, ¶¶ 4–14 (App. 2001).
State v. Wollenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
State v. Wollenberg Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 9 (App. 2001) (applying contract principles to a criminal plea agreement).
Ruben v. Amb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
Ruben v. Amb Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
¶ 9 (App. 2001) (“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract interpretation.”).
In Re Skyler H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
In Re Skyler H. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 9 (App. 2001) ("Plea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract interpretation."); St.
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state 347 P.3d 136 Ariz. 2015
Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. Hon. hoggat/state 347 P.3d 136 Ariz. 2015
See Coy v. Fields (State), ¶ 13, (noting that “when .
State of Arizona v. Veronica Sanchez-Equihua 326 P.3d 321 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Burns 298 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
State v. Burns 298 P.3d 911 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
“A trial court has no jurisdiction to impose probationary terms except as provided by the legislature.” ¶ 4
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
State of Arizona v. Rey David Villegas 281 P.3d 1059 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
at 339-40, 751 P.2d at 999-1000; see also Pickens v. Howes, 549 F.3d 377, 382 (6th Cir. 2008) (holding it “unnecessary to permit a person to withdraw an illegal plea or require the state to retry a case when the defendant’s sentence has been modified to make the sentence legal and to give the defendant every benefit of his bargain”); (recognizing situations in which “contract law may not provide a sufficient analogy” to plea agreements and “rescission is inappropriate”).
State v. Regenold 255 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
State v. Regenold 255 P.3d 1028 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
¶ 4 , (court properly set aside illegal probationary term authorized by signed plea agreement); ¶ 10 , (“When a trial court exceeds its sentencing authority, the sentence is void as to the excess portion.”)
State of Arizona v. Mark Dwayne Gannon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
State of Arizona v. Mark Dwayne Gannon Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2011
According to the state, because probation is not a sentence, n.2, n.2 (App. 2001), the case in which C.M.
State of Arizona v. Steven D. Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
State of Arizona v. Steven D. Szpyrka Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2010
“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract 4 interpretation.”
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
State Ex Rel. Thomas v. Rayes 141 P.3d 806 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2006
¶ 22 The plea bargaining system is contractual in nature, Coy v. Fields, 200 * ¶ 9 , (“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract interpretation.”), and is based on the mutuality of advantage it affords both the defendant and the state.
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
State v. Rivera 109 P.3d 83 Ariz. 2005
See Smith v. Melson, Inc., (“The construction of a contract is a question of law where the terms of the agreement are plain and unambiguous.”); ¶ 9, (“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract interpretation.”).
Aragon v. Wilkinson 97 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Aragon v. Wilkinson 97 P.3d 886 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
V; Ariz. Const. art. 2, § 10; , approved, , ¶ 5
Jackson v. Schneider 86 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Jackson v. Schneider 86 P.3d 381 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Parent v. McClennen 80 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
Parent v. McClennen 80 P.3d 280 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
O'BRIEN v. Escher 65 P.3d 107 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
at 602 , 592 P.2d at 1258 ; n. 2 , n. 2 (App.2001); Sanchez, 191 Ariz. at 419 , 956 P.2d at 1241 .
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2003
at 602, 592 P.2d at 1258; n.2, n.2 (App. 2001); Sanchez, 191 Ariz. at 419, 956 P.2d at 1241.
Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
Demarce v. Willrich 56 P.3d 76 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In essence, “plea agreements are contracts” and as such, may be “subject to contract interpretation.” ¶ 9
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
State v. Booker 53 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2002
(“Plea agreements are contractual in nature and subject to contract interpretation.”).
In re Alex M. 30 P.3d 137 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2001