Neko Anthony Wilson v. Hon. higgins/state, 251 Ariz. 282

In 2006 Wilson was convicted of transporting marijuana; imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation (supervised in California under the interstate compact).
Wilson absconded and was later charged in California; Arizona filed a petition to revoke his Arizona probation but the petition remained unresolved while his California matters were pending.
After California proceedings concluded in 2018–2019, Arizona arrested Wilson on the warrant issued on the revocation petition; at his revocation arraignment the State sought detention without bail under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 7.2(c).
The superior court remanded Wilson without specific findings stating it was detaining him under Rule 7.2(c); Wilson sought special action relief, and the court of appeals held Rule 7.2(c) did not apply to Rule 27.7(c) release determinations.
The Arizona Supreme Court granted review, vacated the court of appeals and the trial court order, and held that Rule 7.2(c)(1)(A) applies to release determinations under Rule 27.7(c), remanding for a release hearing complying with Rule 7.2(c)(1)(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Wilson)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether Rule 7.2(c) governs release determinations under Rule 27.7(c) for a probationer arrested on a revocation warrant	The 2018 restyling deleted the cross-reference to Rule 7.2(c); that deletion (and the probation context) shows 7.2(c) does not apply	Rules addressing release should be read together; deletion was stylistic and 7.2(c) still applies to Rule 27.7(c) release determinations	Court: Rule 7.2(c) applies and should be read with Rule 27.7(c)
Which subsection of Rule 7.2 governs here (7.2(a) pre-conviction vs 7.2(c)(1)(A) after conviction/before sentencing)	Wilson: He is a probationer, not a pre-trial defendant; probation should be treated as a sentence so 7.2(c)(1)(A) does not govern	State: Wilson is convicted and unsentenced (imposition suspended); 7.2(c)(1)(A) (after conviction, before sentencing) applies	Court: 7.2(c)(1)(A) governs release decisions for probationers arrested pending revocation
Constitutional challenge—right to bail / due process (federal and state)	Applying 7.2(c) to probationers violates constitutional bail/due process protections	Probationers have reduced liberty interests; revocation proceedings are not pretrial detention; constitutional protections do not prohibit applying Rule 7.2(c)(1)(A)	Court: Constitutional objections rejected; applying Rule 7.2(c)(1)(A) is consistent with law and probationers’ reduced liberty interests

State v. Muldoon, 159 Ariz. 295 (1988) (distinguishes probation from imposition of sentence and explains consequences of suspended imposition)
State v. Holguin, 177 Ariz. 589 (App. 1993) (observes that a defendant whose probation is revoked is effectively unsentenced for certain purposes)
State v. Vargas, 249 Ariz. 186 (2020) (rules interpretation reviewed de novo; use statutory construction principles)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (probation revocation proceedings differ from criminal prosecution for due process purposes)
Knights v. United States, 534 U.S. 112 (2001) (probationers have reduced liberty interests and may be subject to reasonable conditions)
State v. Alfaro, 127 Ariz. 578 (1980) (probationers do not enjoy absolute liberty; probation is conditional liberty)
State v. Watson, 248 Ariz. 208 (App. 2020) (discusses blurred lines between probation and sentence and need for rule clarity)