Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Lukens, 729 P.2d 306.

34 citing documents.

E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
Overruled E. H. v. Hon. slayton/state 468 P.3d 1209 Ariz. 2020
There is no constitutional requirement to inform a defendant of a specific amount of restitution or to cap the amount of restitution that a court may order, for that proposition.
State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. Fancher 818 P.2d 251 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
our supreme court held that “a defendant cannot be required to pay restitution in an amount exceeding statutorily-prescribed monetary parameters of the crime to which he pleads guilty unless he voluntarily and intelligently agrees to pay a higher amount,” our court decisions have made
State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Wideman 798 P.2d 1373 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
His only objection had to do with requested restitution items which he contended “are not appropriate items for restitution.” Defendant relies on the following cases:
State v. Hernandez 789 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Hernandez 789 P.2d 1079 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
Campas v. Superior Court 767 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Campas v. Superior Court 767 P.2d 230 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
*169 479 , (clarifying Phillips)
State v. King 759 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1988
State v. King 759 P.2d 1312 Ariz. 1988
the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the superior court to allow the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea.
State v. Grijalba 755 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1988
State v. Grijalba 755 P.2d 417 Ariz. 1988
The state raises the following issue for review: , , *113 be overruled or limited to those cases only where the defendant was completely unaware that he was facing any monetary liability?
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-110720 752 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa County Juvenile Action No. JV-110720 752 P.2d 519 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
our supreme court discussed restitution in the context of adult criminal guilty pleas.
State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
State v. Adams 750 P.2d 31 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
(filed approximately three months before Phillips on Nov.
State v. Pearce 751 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
State v. Pearce 751 P.2d 603 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1988
*290 While Pearce did agree to pay restitution as determined by the court but in no event less than $10,000, , , were not satisfied.
State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
State v. Zamora 746 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Zamora 746 P.2d 1327 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
The only issue raised is whether the matter must be remanded to the trial court to allow appellant an opportunity to withdraw from the guilty plea because he was not informed of the specific dollar amount of restitution prior to the trial court’s acceptance of his plea, contrary to the supreme court’s
State v. Dampier 756 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Dampier 756 P.2d 319 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
This case presents restitution questions for disposition in the aftermath of our supreme court’s
In Re the Appeal in Pinal County Juvenile Action No. J-985 745 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
In Re the Appeal in Pinal County Juvenile Action No. J-985 745 P.2d 996 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1987
State v. Weston 745 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
State v. Weston 745 P.2d 994 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1987
We publish our disposition as an opinion because we address a restitution issue closely relating to, but unresolved by, our supreme court’s
State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1987
State v. Phillips 733 P.2d 1116 Ariz. 1987
1 Ill Although we agree that the trial court could order restitution as a proper condition of appellant’s probation, we believe that the trial court erred in imposing restitution of $6,130.65