Cawley v. Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles
James CAWLEY, Frank Rangel and Timothy Curry, Individually and as Representative of a Class, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARIZONA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES; State of Arizona; John Sloss; Richard Ortiz; Robert Araza; Arter L. Johnson; And Patricia Gilbert, Members of the Arizona Board of Pardons and Paroles, Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
GORDON, Vice Chief Justice:
We granted the petition for review herein. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Ariz. Const, art. 6, § 5(3) and Ariz.R.Civ.App.P. 23. We do not disagree with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals as set forth in its opinion, 145 Ariz. 387 , 701 P.2d 1195 (App.1984) but supplement the opinion by adding to it the reasoning contained in State v. LaBarre, 125 Ariz. 497 , 610 P.2d 1058 (App.1980), which we hereby approve.
The opinion of the Court of Appeals, Division One, is approved and supplemented as modified, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this- opinion.
HOLOHAN, C.J., and HAYS, CAMERON and FELDMAN, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(the "rule of lenity" does not allow the tolling of parole time when an offender is paroled to the Department of Corrections to serve a consecutive sentence.)
Cited by 9 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.