State v. Wise

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding legislature did not intend $150,000 to be “the absolute maximum that a convicted person could be compelled to pay”
• concluding fine mandated by § 13-3408(E) not applicable to those convicted of attempt
• upholding fines in the amount of $205,600 as constitutional because of their deterrent effect
• the fact that the trial court had discretion to set the schedule for payment considerably ameliorated the statute’s failure to account for the defendant’s ability to pay
• the fact that the trial court had discretion to set the schedule for payment considerably ameliorated the statute's failure to account for the defendant's ability to pay
• “Certainly the legislature knew when it enacted the surcharge statute [requiring a thirty-seven percent penalty assessment on every fine imposed] that any number of statutes in effect provided a ceiling on the amount of a fine that could be imposed.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

11 cases in this archive cite this case.

• State v. Peek
  Arizona Supreme Court· 2008-11-03· cited 59×
• State v. Cornish
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1998-06-17· cited 28×
• State v. Russo
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2008-04-10· cited 22×
• People v. Antolovich
  Michigan Court of Appeals· 1994-12-05· cited 15×
• State v. Lopez
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1993-05-25· cited 11×
• Matter of $10,098.00 in US Currency
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1993-06-22· cited 8×
• STATE EX REL. BRANNAN v. Williams
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2007-11-29· cited 6×
• State v. Miller
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1992-05-14· cited 3×
• State v. Delgadillo
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1993-03-30· cited 3×
• Keenan Reed-Kaliher v. State of Arizona
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2014-07-25· cited 2×
• Rogers v. Cota
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2009-10-27