State v. ZAPUTIL

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that because there was a timely claim for restitution, there was no basis for the superior court not to order restitution in compliance with Section 13- 603(C)
• observing “both the trial court and the State have a concurrent obligation to see that restitution claims are not only preserved but adjudicated in a timely fashion”
• “restitution is not a penalty or a disability”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).