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. Risher, 574 P.2d 453.

40 citing documents.

  • 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. Arana 843 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1992
  • State v. Arana 843 P.2d 652 Ariz. 1992
    For example, , 272 n. 2, , 927 n. 2 (1985), we noted that the amendment which gave rise to today’s version of § 13-702(H), , in which we held that a defendant found guilty of an “open-end” offense may be placed on probation for a longer period of time than the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor and still have the offense designated as a misdemeanor upon successful completion of the probationary period.
  • State v. Brown 816 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
  • State v. Brown 816 P.2d 932 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
    the supreme court considered an analogous issue.
  • State v. Everhart 819 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Everhart 819 P.2d 990 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Lucero 778 P.2d 1362 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
  • State v. Fox 738 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
  • State v. Fox 738 P.2d 364 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1986
    However, a defendant “may be placed on probation for a longer period of time than the maximum sentence for a misdemeanor and still have the offense designated as a misdemeanor upon successful completion of the probationary period.” , A.R.S.
  • State v. Livanos 725 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
  • State v. Livanos 725 P.2d 505 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1986
    The code provided the method of designating “open-ended” offenses and, under the new code, the trial court could no longer delay the designation of the offense
  • State v. LaBar 715 P.2d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
  • State v. LaBar 715 P.2d 775 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1985
    The appellant is certainly correct in arguing that, generally speaking, a suspended sentence resulting in probation does not constitute a “sentence.”
  • State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
  • State v. Sweet 693 P.2d 921 Ariz. 1985
    If he does not, then it will be designated as a class six felony; and the Court so admonishes the defendant.” We are referred to this court’s , for the proposition that until the trial court declares it to be a misdemeanor, an open-ended sentence is deemed to be a felony conviction.
  • 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 supreme court held “probation is not a sentence, but a feature of imposition of sentence.”
  • State of Arizona v. Sweet 693 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State of Arizona v. Sweet 693 P.2d 944 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Carpenter 684 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
  • State v. Carpenter 684 P.2d 910 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1984
    Justice Holohan dissenting.
  • State v. Wright 643 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
  • State v. Wright 643 P.2d 23 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1982
    the court held this could be done when the defendant was found guilty on an “open-enid” offense (one which could be treated either as a misdemeanor or felony).
  • State v. Williams 639 P.2d 1043 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1981
  • State v. Grice 597 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
  • State v. Grice 597 P.2d 548 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1979
    in support of his position.
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1979
  • State v. Mendivil 592 P.2d 1256 Ariz. 1979
    Although the offense had occurred prior to the 1977 amendment of § 13-1657, Division Two held that the amended version of § 13-1657 could be used because “probation is not a sentence,” , , for that proposition.
  • State v. Soule 591 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
  • State v. Soule 591 P.2d 993 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1979
    The Court in Tuzon further expanded the reasoning by stating: The question of how to treat an open-end offense in cases where imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant placed on probation was answered by this court in a , .
  • 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
    In Levasseur , the court cited the Arizona Supreme Court’s holding in State v, Risher, , that probation is not a “sentence.” , bans only the imposition of a more severe sentence than that in effect at the time the crime was committed, the Levasseur court held that prohibition did not apply to changes in probation statut
  • 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
    31 , our Supreme Court has recently stated in State v. Risher, Ariz., : “Except for the purpose of commencing the time within which a person must appeal, probation is not a sentence and is granted only after the imposition of sentence is suspended.” (Emphasis ours) Accord: Pickett v. Boykin, Ariz.
  • Pickett v. Boykin 576 P.2d 120 Ariz. 1978
  • Pickett v. Boykin 576 P.2d 120 Ariz. 1978
    (No. 3999-PR, filed Jan.
  • State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
  • State v. Tuzon 575 P.2d 1231 Ariz. 1978
    The question of how to treat an open-end offense in cases where imposition of sentence is suspended and the defendant placed on probation was answered by this court in a , .