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. Pakula, 547 P.2d 476.

66 citing documents.

  • State v. Podergois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
  • State v. Podergois Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
    § 13-116, and a purported requirement that probationary terms arising from a single indictment run concurrently
  • State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
  • State v. Bowsher 242 P.3d 1055 Ariz. 2010
    The court rejected Bowsher’s argument that consecutive terms of probation were forbidden by State v. Pakula, 113 Ariz. 122, that Pakula must “be strictly limited to cases wherein there is one indictment involving multiple counts.” Bowsher, 223 Ariz. at 178 ¶
  • State v. Bowsher 221 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
  • State v. Bowsher 221 P.3d 368 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
    ¶ 4 , Bowsher argues on review, as he did below, that the trial court lacked authority to impose consecutive terms of probation.
  • State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
  • State v. Prentiss 786 P.2d 932 Ariz. 1989
    * * * ” , ( , ) (citation omitted).
  • State v. Ball 758 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Ball 758 P.2d 653 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    Defendant argues first that the trial court erred by imposing probation to run consecutively after defendant’s prison sentence
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
  • State v. Clabourne 690 P.2d 54 Ariz. 1984
    252 , 66 L.Ed.2d 119 (1980); , , rev’d on other grounds
  • State v. Jones 689 P.2d 561 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Shepler 684 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Shepler 684 P.2d 924 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Mendibles 629 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
  • State v. Mendibles 629 P.2d 91 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1981
    In 1979, in response to a petition to revoke appellant’s
  • State v. Mendibles 606 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Mendibles 606 P.2d 825 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    Prior to the date set for the evidentiary hearing, , and its progeny.
  • State v. Jones 601 P.2d 1060 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Jones 601 P.2d 1060 Ariz. 1979
    We must decide the following question on appeal: , prevent a judge who is sentencing the same defendant charged in two separate indictments from imposing a prison sentence in one indictment and granting probation in the second indictment?
  • State v. Jenson 597 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Jenson 597 P.2d 554 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    State v. Pitts, 26 Ariz.App.
  • State v. Adams 595 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Adams 595 P.2d 1030 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    At the dispositional hearing, held on July 12, 1978, counsel for appellant argued that the probation granted appellant in July of 1976, invalidly mixed probation and prison
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Wilson 594 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Wilson 594 P.2d 110 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    The Arizona Supreme Court, , has held that probationary periods may not be “stacked” for multiple violations charged in the same indictment or information and that the trial court may not add consecutive periods of probation, one after the other, for multiple convictions.
  • State v. Jones 601 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Catalan 593 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Jones 601 P.2d 1064 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    and its progeny, , , mount.
  • State v. Catalan 593 P.2d 943 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1272 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1978
    Probationary terms may not be stacked
  • State v. Lewis 589 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Lewis 589 P.2d 29 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
    The purpose of the pre-sentence conference here was to discuss with the trial court a sentencing memorandum which appellant’s counsel had filed with the court wherein he proposed a
  • State v. Jordan 584 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Jordan 584 P.2d 561 Ariz. 1978
    the probation had been unlawfully imposed.
  • State v. Bailey 586 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Bailey 586 P.2d 648 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1978
  • State v. Davis 582 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Davis 582 P.2d 175 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Prevost 574 P.2d 1319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Sanders 574 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Sanders 574 P.2d 1316 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Layman 573 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Layman 573 P.2d 909 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1977
  • State v. Ellis 572 P.2d 791 Ariz. 1977