12-116.09. Assessment; victims' rights enforcement
A. In addition to any other penalty assessment provided by law, a penalty assessment shall be levied in an amount of $4 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 or town treasurer.
C. The city, town or county treasurer shall transmit the assessments and the remittance report to the state treasurer. The state treasurer shall deposit the assessments in the victims' rights enforcement fund established by section 41-1727.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 2019–2022 · leading case:
State v. Raffaele, 471 P.3d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Raffaele, 471 P.3d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “09(A) did not become effective until after Raffaele committed the offense at issue here and the statute imposes a punishment, see State v. Beltran, 170 Ariz. 406, 408 (App.”
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 2× “Criminal Restitution Order ¶13 At sentencing, the superior court ordered that Dustin’s “fines and fees be reduced to a criminal restitution order.” Dustin argues the imposition of the CRO is fundamental, prejudicial error because he had not completed his sentence or absconded;…”
State v. McCartney, 493 P.3d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “¶5 This court affirmed McCartney’s convictions and probation on appeal. See State v. McCartney, 1 CA-CR 18-0724, 2020 WL 1027666 (Ariz.”
State v. Ruelas, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0110 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 21, 2022).
· cites it 2× “But the court stated it was sentencing Ruelas “consistent with the recommendation of the presentence report[,]” which contained a list of the required fees and assessments.”
State v. Sholes, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0497 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022).
· cites it 2× “See State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389 (App. 2019).”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-116.09(A): 3 cases
State v. Raffaele, 471 P.3d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“09(A) did not become effective until after Raffaele committed the offense at issue here and the statute imposes a punishment, see State v. Beltran, 170 Ariz. 406, 408 (App.”
State v. McCartney, 493 P.3d 905 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
“¶5 This court affirmed McCartney’s convictions and probation on appeal. See State v. McCartney, 1 CA-CR 18-0724, 2020 WL 1027666 (Ariz.”
State v. Sholes, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0497 (Ariz. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2022).
“See State v. Dustin, 247 Ariz. 389 (App. 2019).”
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.