State v. Contreras

In State v. Contreras, 180 Ariz. 450, 885 P.2d 138 (App. 1994), the Court stated in a footnote, "when we are able to ascertain the trial court's intention by reference to the record, remand for clarification is unnecessary." Id. at 453 n.2, 885 P.2d at 141 n.2. The court in Contreras found that even though the judge stated at the hearing that restitution would be in the amount of $ 300, all other evidence, including the minute entry, prior discussions on the record, and the amended probation terms, indicated that restitution should be in the amount of $ 330, and proceeded with its discussion based on that greater amount. Id.