Legal Opinion · Concurrence

State v. Nihiser

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 30, 1997No. 2 CA-CR 97-0070Published

1Concurrence

DRUKE, Chief Judge,

specially concurring.

I concur, but write separately on the two days’ presentence incarceration credit. When a trial court grants probation to a defendant, such as appellant, who has been convicted of violating A.R.S. § 28-697(A)(l), subsection E of the statute requires the court to impose a prison sentence of “not less than four months” as a condition of probation. The court thwarts this legislatively mandated minimum prison sentence if it must, as Mathieu holds, then give the defendant credit for *205presentence incarceration. Indeed, the legislative mandate could be nullified…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. WilliamsCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1981
  2. State v. WietholterArizona Supreme Court · 1981
  3. State v. SchumannCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1993

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

Powered by the Exa API