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. Smith, 542 P.2d 1115.

57 citing documents.

  • Wake v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
    (discussing probation as a “sentencing alternative” for less serious offenders who can be rehabilitated without incarceration).
  • State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
  • State v. Gonzales Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2025
    (“It is enough for the trial court to have a ‘reason to believe’ that the individual is ‘violating the conditions of his probation or engaging in criminal practices’ to revoke his probation.” ()).
  • State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
  • State v. McSmith Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2024
    “To remain at liberty under a suspended sentence is not a matter of right but a matter of [legislative] grace.” ()
  • State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Watson 459 P.3d 120 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2020
  • State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Nash Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    “Revocation hearings are flexible and not subject to the same rules of evidence and procedure as govern criminal trials.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  • State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
  • State v. Thompson Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
    It is enough for the trial court to have a reason to believe that the individual is violating the conditions of his probation or engaging in criminal practices to revoke his probation.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
  • State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
  • State ex rel. Polk v. Hancock 340 P.3d 380 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
    (“Probation is a matter of legislative grace.”).
  • State of Arizona v. Susan Irene Hernandez 295 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
  • State of Arizona v. Susan Irene Hernandez 295 P.3d 451 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2013
    Thus, probation “is a sentencing alternative which a court may use in its sound judicial discretion when the rehabilitation of the defendant can be accomplished with restrictive freedom rather than imprisonment,” and a court need not “spell out its reasons for either granting or denying probation,” Douglas, 87 Ariz. at 187, 349 P.2d at 625.
  • State v. Tatlow 290 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
  • State v. Tatlow 290 P.3d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
    To revoke a defendant’s probation, “[i]t is enough for the trial court to have a ‘reason to believe’ that the individual is ‘violating the conditions of his probation or engaging in criminal practices[.]’ ”
  • State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
    (recognizing probation as “a sentencing alternative which a court may use in its sound judicial discretion when the rehabilitation of the defendant can be accomplished with restrictive freedom rather than
  • State v. Gomez 127 P.3d 873 Ariz. 2006
  • Coy v. Fields 27 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
  • Coy v. Fields 27 P.3d 799 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2001
    ¶ 4 Probation is a matter of “legislative grace.”
  • State v. Portis 929 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
  • State v. Portis 929 P.2d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1996
    (“Probation is a matter of legislative grace.”).
  • Kanuck v. Meehan 798 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • Kanuck v. Meehan 798 P.2d 420 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    1756 , 36 L.Ed.2d 656 (1973)
  • State v. Garibaldi 802 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
  • State v. Garibaldi 802 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1990
    It is true that probation is a matter of grace, , and the court can impose “such terms and conditions ...
  • State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Carvajal 709 P.2d 1366 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. Barksdale 694 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
  • State v. Barksdale 694 P.2d 295 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1984
    Our conclusion here comports with our supreme court’s , where it said: Probation is a matter of legislative grace.
  • State v. Mears 654 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Mears 654 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1982
  • State v. Christopher 652 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1982
  • State v. Christopher 652 P.2d 1031 Ariz. 1982
    As probation itself is a matter of grace and not of right, , so too is rehabilitative treatment while on probation.
  • State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Harris 596 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Harris 596 P.2d 731 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    Probation, however, is a matter of legislative grace, , and the court’s authority is derived from the statutes.
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1979
    While we agree that probation or parole is not a constitutional right but a matter of legislative grace, , we prefer to join those jurisdictions which subscribe to the premise that statutes detrimentally affecting parole eligibility are unconstitutionally insofar as applied to a prisoner charged with commission of a crime prior to the enactment of the statute.
  • State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Timpson 581 P.2d 698 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Levasseur 578 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Levasseur 578 P.2d 1026 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    Probation is a matter of legislative grace, , and the superior court’s power with respect to probation is purely statutory.
  • State v. Smith 576 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Smith 576 P.2d 533 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    The court can surround probation with restrictions and requirements which a defendant must follow to retain his probationary status.”
  • State v. Carter 570 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Carter 570 P.2d 763 Ariz. 1977
  • State v. Valenzuela 567 P.2d 1190 Ariz. 1977