State v. Tousignant
Court of Appeals of Arizona
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
- Zamora v. ReinsteinArizona Supreme Court · 1996
- Calik v. KongableArizona Supreme Court · 1999
- State v. MontgomeryArizona Supreme Court · 1977
- State v. HensleyCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2001
3Cited by11 opinions
- People v. CantyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2004
- O'BRIEN v. EscherCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- State v. StoryCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2003
- Demarce v. WillrichCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2002
- State v. VaughnCourt of Appeals of Arizona · 2008
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.