Legal Opinion

State v. Adams

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1988No. CR-87-0344-PRPublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

FELDMAN, Vice Chief Justice.

In State v. Phillips, 152 Ariz. 533, 535, 733 P.2d 1116, 1118 (1987), 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. See also State v. Crowder, 155 Ariz. 477, *169479, 747 P.2d 1176, 1178 (1987) (clarifying Phillips); State v. Lukens, 151 Ariz. 502, 729 P.2d 306 (1986). We granted review to determine whether this rule applies retroactively to cases pending on direct review when we decided Phillips. We have jurisdiction under Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 5(3) and A.R.S. §§ 13-4031…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. Griffith v. KentuckySupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  4. Swain v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
  5. McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. State v. FancherCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1991
  2. State v. SasakCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993
  3. E. H. v. Hon. slayton/stateArizona Supreme Court · 2020
  4. State v. MendozaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1990
  5. Schuler v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1989

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API