State v. Estrada
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- Calik v. KongableArizona Supreme Court · 1999
- In Re the Marriage of GrayArizona Supreme Court · 1985
- State v. WeibleArizona Supreme Court · 1984
- Goddard v. Superior CourtCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 1998
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. EstradaArizona Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. OssanaCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
- Hernandez v. LynchCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2007
- State v. RodriguezCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
- Keenen v. BilesCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.