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. Phillips, 733 P.2d 1116.

46 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.
  • E.H. v. Hon. Slayton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
  • E.H. v. Hon. Slayton Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2019
    In support of the caps, and State v. Lukens, 151 2 Absent material revision after the relevant date, we cite the current version of a statute or rule.
  • Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
  • Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state 295 P.3d 939 Ariz. 2013
    See State v. Phillips, 152 Ariz. 533, 535, (holding that a defendant thoroughly understands the consequences of an agreement to make restitution when plea agreement caps the amount that may be ordered)
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Smith 831 P.2d 877 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Morris 839 P.2d 434 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    For example, restitution orders have been upheld for medical expenses of the victim, , including mental health counseling following a crime.
  • State v. Lewus 825 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
  • State v. Lewus 825 P.2d 471 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1992
    the supreme court held that a trial court does not abuse its discretion in *414 orderíng a defendant to pay restitution if the defendant agrees to pay restitution pursuant to a plea agreement or otherwise.
  • 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
    were not rooted in the constitutional requirement that a plea must be made knowingly, voluntarily
  • State v. O'Guin 811 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. O'Guin 811 P.2d 790 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1991
  • State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
  • State v. Mendoza 823 P.2d 63 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
    the supreme court vacated a court of appeals’ , was not retroactive.
  • 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
  • State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
  • State v. Adams 765 P.2d 992 Ariz. 1988
    we held that a criminal defendant must know the amount of restitution he will be required to pay before the court accepts his plea bargain.
  • State v. Perkins 767 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Perkins 767 P.2d 729 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
    On May 4, 1987, , and having previously found a factual basis for Pearce’s plea and that it was entered knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently, the trial court stated that before it decided whether to accept the plea agreement, it would hear testimony on restitution.
  • State v. Egwaoje 749 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
  • State v. Egwaoje 749 P.2d 937 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1988
    On appeal, , so that the trial court erred in imposing almost $12,000 in restitution, because he was not informed of the dollar amount or maximum possible amount of restitution before the trial court accepted his plea.
  • State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
  • State v. Crowder 747 P.2d 1176 Ariz. 1987
    He relies on State v. *479 Phillips, , which this court decided on February 26, 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