Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite State v. Wilkinson, 39 P.3d 1131.

83 citing documents.

In Re Corey K. Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2016
he offense for which the juvenile was adjudicated delinquent.” Restitution is appropriate for a victim’s losses that, first, “are economic,” second, “would not have occurred but for the juvenile’s delinquent conduct,” and third, “are directly caused by the delinquent conduct (e.g. not consequential damages).” ¶ 9, 160 P.3d, 687, 689 ( ¶ 7, ).
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State of Arizona v. Victor Kyle Lizardi 323 P.3d 1152 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
State v. Morales-Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Morales-Carrillo Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State v. Lewis 214 P.3d 409 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
¶ 18, ; , Madrid, , 85 P.3d at 1056 .
State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Orvie Rowland Streck Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
P.3d 1131 (2002); and our recent opinion in State v. Slover, No. 2 CA-CR 2007-0379, 2009 WL 295027 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb.
In Re Brendan G. 212 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
In Re Brendan G. 212 P.3d 830 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2009
¶ 11 , our supreme court enunciated a three-part test for determining when a loss is compensable via a restitution award: (1) the loss must be economic; (2) the loss must be one that the victim would not have incurred but for the criminal offense; and (3) the criminal conduct must directly cause the ec
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
State of Arizona v. Robert Leeroy Slover Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2009
In sum, a court should order restitution for “damages that flow directly from the defendant’s criminal conduct, without the intervention of additional causative factors.”
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
Town of Gilbert Prosecutor's Office v. Downie 189 P.3d 393 Ariz. 2008
1 The municipal court convicted Matykiewiez and, , ordered him to pay restitution of $52,784.22, the entire amount the Radas had paid.
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
State v. Guadagni 178 P.3d 473 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2008
See, ¶¶ 5, 9, 14 , -34 (2002) (finding party to a contract a victim of offense of contracting without license; victim entitled to recovery to extent “particular criminal conduct directly cause[d] the victim’s loss”).
TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
TOWN OF GILBERT PROSECUTOR'S OFC. v. Downie 162 P.3d 669 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
¶ 2 In support of its argument, -31, ¶ 16 , -35 (2002), in which the Arizona Supreme Court determined on the basis of Arizona statutory law that the loss the victims suffered that was subject to restitution consisted of the money they paid to an unlicensed contractor because that was the loss directly caused by the criminal cond
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re Andrew C. 160 P.3d 687 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2007
In Re William L. 119 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
In Re William L. 119 P.3d 1039 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2005
¶ 13 ¶ 7 , our supreme court interpreted these statutes as imposing three requirements for a recoverable loss: (1) the loss must be economic, (2) the loss must be one that the victim would not have incurred but for the juvenile's criminal offense, and (3) the criminal conduct must directly c
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
State of Arizona v. Clayton M. Guilliams Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2004
¶13 Although the term “victim” is not defined in the statute, our supreme cou rt interpreted the scope of § 13-603(C) P.3d 1131 (2002).
State v. Madrid 85 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
State v. Madrid 85 P.3d 1054 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
Bentivegna v. Powers Steel & Wire Products, Inc. 81 P.3d 1040 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2004
¶ 21 , for the proposition that they are entitled to restitution of the amount paid to Powers.
In Re Stephanie B. 65 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
In Re Stephanie B. 65 P.3d 114 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2003
-29, ¶ 6 , -33 (2002) (discussing A.R.S.
In Re Andrew A. 58 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
In Re Andrew A. 58 P.3d 527 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2002
¶¶ 14-15 , Lindsley, 191 Ariz. at 197 , 953 P.2d at 1250 (although defendant was not charged *587 with theft “[t]he trial court could reasonably infer from the evidence that the damage to the wallet was the direct result of defendant’s unlawful possession of it”).