Legal Opinion

State v. Estrada

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided September 26, 2000No. 1 CA-CR 98-0797PublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FIDEL, Judge.

¶ 1 With certain exceptions relating to pri- or convictions, Proposition 200, an initiative measure codified as A.R.S. § 13-901.01, requires probation for defendants convicted of personal possession of a controlled substance. This appeal presents two questions: (1) Does Proposition 200 require probation for a defendant convicted of personal possession of a controlled substance if the defendant has one prior conviction for conspiracy to possess narcotic drugs for sale? (2) Does Proposition 200 require probation for a defendant convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia?…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Calik v. KongableArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  3. In Re the Marriage of GrayArizona Supreme Court · 1985
  4. State v. WeibleArizona Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Goddard v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1998

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. EstradaArizona Supreme Court · 2001
  2. State v. OssanaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  3. Hernandez v. LynchCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
  4. State v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
  5. Keenen v. BilesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001

8 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