State of Arizona, Appellee v. Christopher Michael Regenold, Appellant — Pelander, J., Dissenting

Summary

The dissent would hold that the court of appeals lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Regenold's appeal because his sentence was entered pursuant to a plea agreement. It reasons that the plea agreement controlled the sentencing disposition despite the later probation violation and that review was available through post-conviction proceedings under Rule 32. The dissent would therefore affirm the court of appeals' dismissal.