Legal Opinion

O'CONNOR v. Hyatt

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided March 30, 2004No. 1 CA-SA 04-0054PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶ 1 A person placed on probation in 2001 for a Proposition 200 1 offense who violates her probation must be reinstated on probation with additional conditions of probation. See Ariz.Rev.Stat. (“A.R.S.”) § 13-901.01(E) (2001); see also State v. Tousignant, 202 Ariz. 270, 271, ¶ 6, 43 P.3d 218, 219 (App. 2002). Under that version of Proposition 200 in effect in 2001 when Petitioner Joan Holly O’Connor committed her offense, she cannot be given a jail term as a condition of her reinstated probation following a probation violation. 2 See O’Brien, 204 Ariz. at 463, ¶ 15, 65…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  2. State Ex Rel. Corbin v. PickrellArizona Supreme Court · 1983
  3. Calik v. KongableArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State v. EstradaArizona Supreme Court · 2001
  5. State v. RiggsArizona Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Obregon v. Industrial Commission of ArizonaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  2. Stout v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2013
  3. SFPP, L.P. v. Arizona Department of RevenueCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005
  4. State v. VaughnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
  5. State v. CofieldCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2005

1 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