Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 1
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 1-247 (2026)

Repeal of law and substitution of penalty; effect

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When by the provisions of a repealing statute a new penalty is substituted for an offense punishable under the law repealed, such repealing statute shall not exempt from punishment a person who has offended against the repealed law while it was in force, but in such case the rule prescribed in section 1-246 shall govern.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1963–2021 · leading case: State v. Johnson, 383 P.2d 862 (Ariz. 1963).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Johnson, 383 P.2d 862 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 2× “§ 1-246 and § 1-247: “§ 1-246. Penalty altered by subsequent law; effect “When the penalty for an offense is prescribed by one law and altered by a subsequent law, the penalty of such second law shall not be inflicted for a breach of the law committed before the second took…”
State v. Scrivner, 611 P.2d 95 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 1-247. Additionally, Section 179 of Chapter 142 of the Session Laws of 1977, which enacted the new Criminal Code, provides in part: Sec.”
State v. Brown, 599 P.2d 859 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “” See also A.R.S. § 1-247. Section 179 of Chapter 142 of the Session Laws of 1977 which enacted the new Criminal Code provides in part: “Sec.”
Tyree v. Moran, 550 P.2d 1076 (Ariz. 1976). · cites it 2× “The respondents argue that the 1974 amendment cannot be given retroactive effect because there is no expression of such intent within the act.”
State v. Vineyard, 392 P.2d 30 (Ariz. 1964). “” “§ 1-247. Repeal of law and substitution of penalty; effect.”
State v. Serna, 857 P.2d 384 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “§ 1-247. Repeal of law and substitution of penalty; effect When by the provisions of a repealing statute a new penalty is substituted for an offense punishable under the law repealed, such repealing statute shall not exempt from punishment a person who has offended against the…”
United States v. Jose Madrid-Becerra, 14 F.4th 1096 (9th Cir. 2021). “” 1 A.R.S. § 1-247 provides: When by the provisions of a repealing statute a new penalty is substituted for an offense punishable under the law repealed, such repealing statute shall not exempt from punishment a person who has offended against the repealed law while it was in…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.