Legal Opinion

State v. Tousignant

Court of Appeals of Arizona

Decided April 9, 2002No. 1 CA-CR 01-0418PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

GEMMILL, Judge.

¶ 1 May a defendant who has violated his probation under Proposition 200 then choose to reject any further probation? We hold, in accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) § 13-901.01(E)(2001), that such a defendant cannot reject probation and the trial court must continue the defendant on probation and impose appropriate additional conditions. We therefore vacate the trial court’s order and remand for reinstatement of probation with appropriate additional terms.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶ 2 On March 21, 2000, the trial court placed Tousignant on mandatory…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
  2. Calik v. KongableArizona Supreme Court · 1999
  3. State v. MontgomeryArizona Supreme Court · 1977
  4. State v. HensleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. People v. CantyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
  2. O'BRIEN v. EscherCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  3. State v. StoryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
  4. Demarce v. WillrichCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
  5. State v. VaughnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008

6 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