12-116.04. Assessment; law enforcement officer equipment; gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission
A. In addition to any other penalty assessment provided by law, a penalty assessment shall be levied in an amount of thirteen dollars on every fine, penalty and forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses and any civil penalty imposed and collected for a civil traffic violation and fine, penalty or forfeiture for a violation of the motor vehicle statutes, for any local ordinance relating to the stopping, standing or operation of a vehicle or for a violation of the game and fish statutes in title 17.
B. The court shall transmit the assessments collected pursuant to this section and a remittance report of the fines, civil penalties and assessments collected pursuant to this section to the county treasurer, except that municipal courts shall transmit the assessments and the remittance report of the fines, civil penalties and assessments to the city treasurer.
C. The city or county treasurer shall transmit eight dollars of the assessment and the remittance report to the state treasurer. The state treasurer shall deposit four dollars of the assessment in the public safety equipment fund established by section 41-1723 and the remaining four dollars of the assessment in the gang and immigration intelligence team enforcement mission border security and law enforcement subaccount established by section 41-1724.
D. The city or county treasurer shall transmit four dollars of the assessment and the remittance report to the agency that investigated the offense or issued the citation to be used to supplement, not supplant, monies available for officer safety equipment.
E. The city treasurer shall transmit one dollar of the assessment and the remittance report to the county treasurer. The county treasurer shall transmit one dollar of the assessment and any monies received from the city treasurer pursuant to this subsection to the following entities to be used to improve, maintain and enhance the ability to collect and manage monies assessed or received by the courts, to improve court automation and to improve case processing or the administration of justice:
1. In a county with a population of less than two million persons, to the justice courts, distributed proportionally based on the judicial productivity credits calculated pursuant to section 22-125.
2. In a county with a population of two million persons or more, to the justice court administration.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2015–2023 · leading case:
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 4× “04(A) (“In addition to any other penalty assessment provided by law, a penalty assessment shall be levied in an amount of thirteen dollars on every fine, penalty and forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses.”) (emphasis added).”
State v. McCartney, 493 P.3d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “09(A). ¶5 This court affirmed McCartney’s convictions and probation on appeal.”
State v. Sholes, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0497 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022).
· cites it 4× “Here, the court imposed no such predicate fine, penalty or forfeiture for Count 4. See State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389 (App.”
State v. Rice, No. 1 CA-CR 22-0498 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2023).
· cites it 4× “Likewise, she waived her argument that the additional assessment “constitutes double dipping” because she did not raise it until her reply brief. See State v.”
State v. McKnelly, No. 1 CA-CR 14-0547 (Ariz. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2016).
· cites it 2× “2015), a penalty assessment of $13 pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116.04 (Supp. 2015), and a $15 technical registration fund fee.”
State v. Diamond, No. 1 CA-CR 17-0670 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 1, 2018).
· cites it 2× “2 $20 probation assessment; $13 assessment fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116.04; $20 time payment fee pursuant to A.”
State v. Stuebe, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0032 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).
· cites it 2× “Without any underlying fine, the court further erred in imposing the two assessment fees.”
State v. Hines, No. 1 CA-CR 20-0397 (Ariz. Ct. App. Nov. 18, 2021).
· cites it 2× “1992) (reference in authorizing statute to “penalty assessment” reflects Legislature’s determination that assessment 8 is a “punishment” and therefore subject to the prohibition against ex post facto application).”
State v. Ruelas, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0110 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 21, 2022).
· cites it 2× “09, which also requires a predicate fine, penalty or forfeiture.”). If the court overlooks its statutory duty to impose a felony assessment, the initial sentence is unlawful.”
State v. Stiefel, No. 1 CA-CR 14-0532 (Ariz. Ct. App. Sept. 10, 2015).
· cites it 2× “¶13 For Count 1, possession of dangerous drugs with the intent to sell, the court sentenced Stiefel to twelve and one half years of imprisonment, see A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-116.04(A): 7 cases
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“04(A) (“In addition to any other penalty assessment provided by law, a penalty assessment shall be levied in an amount of thirteen dollars on every fine, penalty and forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses.”) (emphasis added).”
State v. McCartney, 493 P.3d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“09(A). ¶5 This court affirmed McCartney’s convictions and probation on appeal.”
State v. Sholes, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0497 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022).
“Here, the court imposed no such predicate fine, penalty or forfeiture for Count 4. See State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389 (App.”
State v. Stuebe, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0032 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).
“Without any underlying fine, the court further erred in imposing the two assessment fees.”
State v. Ruelas, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0110 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 21, 2022).
“09, which also requires a predicate fine, penalty or forfeiture.”). If the court overlooks its statutory duty to impose a felony assessment, the initial sentence is unlawful.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-116.04(D): 1 case
State v. Rice, No. 1 CA-CR 22-0498 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2023).
“Likewise, she waived her argument that the additional assessment “constitutes double dipping” because she did not raise it until her reply brief. See State v.”
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.