Legal Opinion

State v. Smith

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided November 2, 2000No. 1 CA-CR 99-0937PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FIDEL, Judge.

¶ 1 Pursuant to an agreement with the State, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of using a dangerous drug, both class 4 felonies, and admitted to violating his intensive probation by committing those offenses. The superior court accepted Defendant’s guilty plea, but did not follow the plea agreement’s proposed imposition of prison time. Instead, the court reinstated Defendant on intensive probation. The State appeals the superior court’s sentencing order, arguing that the court was required to impose imprisonment. We agree and accordingly set aside the sentence and remand.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. ThomasCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  2. Mejia v. IrwinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  3. State v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999
  4. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1999

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. StoryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  2. State v. BotkinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009
  3. State v. HannahCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2015
  4. State v. BotkinCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API