Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Muldoon, 767 P.2d 16.

30 citing documents.

Wake v. State Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2026
(“Probation is not a sentence.”).
Neko Anthony Wilson v. Hon. higgins/state 491 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2021
Neko Anthony Wilson v. Hon. higgins/state 491 P.3d 389 Ariz. 2021
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
¶23 The State attempts to avoid the Gordon mandate by citing our supreme court’s that “[p]robation is not a sentence.” The State then argues that A.R.S.
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
State v. Redzinak 422 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Redzinak 422 P.3d 1089 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2018
State v. Muldoon , , 298, , 19 (1988).
State v. Neal Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018
Moreover, “[p]robation is not a sentence.”
Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
Kaleta v. Hon. bernstein/state Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
State v. Regenold 249 P.3d 337 Ariz. 2011
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
State v. Uriarte 981 P.2d 575 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1998
(“A sentence is a judicial order requiring a defendant convicted in a criminal case to presently suffer a specified sanction such as incarceration, monetary fine, or both.”); see also Ariz. R.Crim.
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
State v. Sanchez 956 P.2d 1240 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 1997
In re the Appeal in Yuma County Juvenile Action No. J-95-63 902 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
In re the Appeal in Yuma County Juvenile Action No. J-95-63 902 P.2d 834 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1995
State v. Holguin 870 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. Holguin 870 P.2d 407 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1993
State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
State v. McCuin 808 P.2d 332 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1991
Moreover, , our supreme court distinguished even probation from traditional sentences: As the State argues, however, there is a difference between a sentence and an order imposing probation.
State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Mathieu 795 P.2d 1303 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1990
State v. Falco 783 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Falco 783 P.2d 258 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
Moreover, although an order imposing probation is not ordinarily a sentence, , when used in the context of Rule 26 and, by inference, Rule 24.3, the term “sentence” does include probation.
State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Lee 774 P.2d 228 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
297 n. 1, , 18 n. 1 (1988).
State v. Bouchier 767 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989
State v. Bouchier 767 P.2d 233 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 1989