Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 12
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-114.01 (2026)

Probation assessment; deposit

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-114.01. Probation assessment; deposit

A. Except as provided in section 12-269, in addition to any other penalty, fine, fee, surcharge or assessment authorized by law, a person shall pay an assessment of twenty dollars on conviction for a criminal offense or a finding of responsibility for a civil traffic violation, for a violation of any local ordinance relating to the stopping, standing or operation of a vehicle, except parking violations, or for a violation of the game and fish statutes in title 17.

B. The monies collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in the judicial collection enhancement fund established by section 12-113 to be used to supplement monies currently used for the salaries of adult and juvenile probation and surveillance officers and for support of programs and services of the superior court adult and juvenile probation departments.

C. The court may mitigate all or part of the assessment in the same manner and subject to the same limitations included in the mitigation of a fine in section 13-825, subsection B.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case: State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 10× “§ 13-812 (1986), repealed by 1993 Ariz. Sess.”
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “The court in that case ruled that a $10 probation *566 surcharge was properly imposed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-114.01(A) because the underlying probation fee assessed under A.”
State v. Pelaez, 330 P.3d 1021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 14× “The 2006 version of § 12-269(C) stated, "[i]n lieu of the surcharge prescribed in § 12-114.01 and in addition to any other penalty assessment provided by law, a county with a population of two million or more persons shall levy a probation surcharge in an amount determined by…”
State v. Hernandez-Perez, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0507 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 16, 2019). · cites it 12× “§ 12-269(C) (requiring counties with two million or more persons to impose a different assessment). Given the mandatory language, the statute requires a court to impose the assessment called for by subsection A whenever a defendant is convicted of “a criminal offense” in a…”
State v. Castronova, 212 P.3d 887 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 16× “The probation fee accordingly qualifies under A.R.S. § 12-114.01 (A). ¶ 9 This analysis is consistent with the purpose of A.”
State v. Nelson, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0104 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2019). · cites it 6× “In Appellant’s first appeal, the trial court failed to orally impose that assessment at sentencing, and the State conceded that adding the $20 probation assessment in the court’s written sentencing order was error and asked this court to remand to allow the court to cure that…”
State v. McCartney, 493 P.3d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “04(A); and (6) victim rights enforcement assessments, see A.”
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “, A.R.S. § 12-114.01 ($10 probation surcharge on every fine, penalty, and forfeiture shall be deposited in judicial collection enhancement fund (JCEF) established by A.”
State v. Wooten, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0136 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 19, 2018). · cites it 2× “Under A.R.S. § 12-114.01(A), “in addition to any other penalty, fine, fee, surcharge or assessment authorized by law, a person shall pay [a probation] assessment of twenty dollars on conviction for a criminal offense .”
State v. Stiefel, No. 1 CA-CR 14-0532 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2015). · cites it 2× “§ 13-3407(H); a $13 penalty assessment, see A.R.S. § 12-116.04(A) (West 2015); a $20 time payment fee, see A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-114.01(A): 10 cases
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “The court in that case ruled that a $10 probation *566 surcharge was properly imposed pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-114.01(A) because the underlying probation fee assessed under A.”
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 13-812 (1986), repealed by 1993 Ariz. Sess.”
State v. Pelaez, 330 P.3d 1021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “The 2006 version of § 12-269(C) stated, "[i]n lieu of the surcharge prescribed in § 12-114.01 and in addition to any other penalty assessment provided by law, a county with a population of two million or more persons shall levy a probation surcharge in an amount determined by…”
State v. Hernandez-Perez, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0507 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 16, 2019). “§ 12-269(C) (requiring counties with two million or more persons to impose a different assessment). Given the mandatory language, the statute requires a court to impose the assessment called for by subsection A whenever a defendant is convicted of “a criminal offense” in a…”
State v. Castronova, 212 P.3d 887 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “The probation fee accordingly qualifies under A.R.S. § 12-114.01 (A). ¶ 9 This analysis is consistent with the purpose of A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-114.01(B): 3 cases
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 13-812 (1986), repealed by 1993 Ariz. Sess.”
State v. Castronova, 212 P.3d 887 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “The probation fee accordingly qualifies under A.R.S. § 12-114.01 (A). ¶ 9 This analysis is consistent with the purpose of A.”
State v. Hernandez-Perez, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0507 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 16, 2019). “§ 12-269(C) (requiring counties with two million or more persons to impose a different assessment). Given the mandatory language, the statute requires a court to impose the assessment called for by subsection A whenever a defendant is convicted of “a criminal offense” in a…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-114.01(C): 1 case
State v. Nelson, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0104 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2019). “In Appellant’s first appeal, the trial court failed to orally impose that assessment at sentencing, and the State conceded that adding the $20 probation assessment in the court’s written sentencing order was error and asked this court to remand to allow the court to cure that…”
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.