A. In addition to any other assessment authorized by law, a fee of $20 shall be assessed on each person who pays a court ordered penalty, fine or sanction on a time payment basis, including parking penalties and restitution. The fee may not be assessed on a penalty, fine or sanction that is ordered by the court pursuant to title 8. A time payment basis shall be any penalty, fine or sanction not paid in full on the date the court imposed the fine, penalty or sanction. Notwithstanding any other law, the time payment fee shall be collected first after restitution. A judge may not waive or suspend a time payment fee.
B. $11 of the time payment fee shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in the judicial collection enhancement fund established by section 12-113. $2 of the time payment fee shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in the judicial collection enhancement fund and shall be allocated by the supreme court to the public defender training fund established by section 12-117. $7 of the time payment fee shall be kept by the court imposing the fee to be used by the court 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. For amounts over an amount determined by the supreme court, the court shall submit a plan to the supreme court that must be approved by the supreme court before the court spends such monies. If the proposed project was described in the information technology strategic plan submitted by the court and approved by the supreme court, including the proposed budget for the project, the project may proceed without further approval of the supreme court. In the case of the superior court, the presiding judge and clerk of the superior court must agree on the project or it shall be submitted to and approved by the supreme court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
24
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1962–2022 · leading case:
State v. Weinbrenner, 795 P.2d 235 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Weinbrenner, 795 P.2d 235 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 17× “00 time payment fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116 for crimes committed prior to the June 28, 1989, effective date of the statute.”
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “§ 12-113); A.R.S. § 12-116 ($20 time-payment fee disbursed to multiple funds, including JCEF, pursuant to A.”
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 5× “Time Payment Fee ¶3 Dustin argues the superior court erred by imposing a time payment fee because there was no corresponding penalty, fine or sanction that triggered statutory authorization of the fee.”
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 761 P.2d 1041 (Ariz. 1988).
· cites it 7× “Additionally, the clerk stated that if she found the signatures filed within the initial thirty-day period to be insufficient, Hamilton would have ten days after the declaration of insufficiency to file supplemental signatures pursuant to § 12-116 of the Phoenix City Code. On…”
State v. Beckerman, 814 P.2d 1388 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 11× “00 time payment fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116. The defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of sale of narcotic drugs, class 2 felonies, in violation of A.”
State of Arizona v. Thomas Giles Connolly, 163 P.3d 1082 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 7× “The sole issue Connolly raises on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously imposed the $20 time-payment fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116. Although the amount in controversy might be viewed as de minimis, no other Arizona decisions have directly addressed this precise issue,…”
State v. Rivera, 836 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 9× “The State contends that the language of A.R.S. § 12-116 reflects a legislative intent to impose the time payment fee for each monetary assessment that is not paid in full on the date it is imposed by the trial court.”
State v. Hamilton, 868 P.2d 986 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “6 Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s denial of defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
State v. Pennington, 873 P.2d 639 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 19× “ISSUE Whether A.R.S. § 12-116 requires a time payment fee for each time payment plan assessed against a defendant.”
Pointe Resorts, Inc. v. Culbertson, 750 P.2d 1361 (Ariz. 1987).
· cites it 10× “This additional filing period is authorized by Phoenix City Code § 12-116, which provides in relevant part: *159 (A) If the Clerk’s certificate shows the petition to be insufficient: (1) He shall at once notify in writing one or more of the persons designated on the petition as…”
State v. Thomas, 799 P.2d 914 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 10× “The court ordered Thomas to pay a felony assessment of $100 on each count and a fine of $2,740 on each count.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-116(A) — 12 cases
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“§ 12-113); A.R.S. § 12-116 ($20 time-payment fee disbursed to multiple funds, including JCEF, pursuant to A.”
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“Time Payment Fee ¶3 Dustin argues the superior court erred by imposing a time payment fee because there was no corresponding penalty, fine or sanction that triggered statutory authorization of the fee.”
State v. Weinbrenner, 795 P.2d 235 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“00 time payment fees pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116 for crimes committed prior to the June 28, 1989, effective date of the statute.”
State of Arizona v. Thomas Giles Connolly, 163 P.3d 1082 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“The sole issue Connolly raises on appeal is whether the trial court erroneously imposed the $20 time-payment fee pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-116. Although the amount in controversy might be viewed as de minimis, no other Arizona decisions have directly addressed this precise issue,…”
State v. Rivera, 836 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“The State contends that the language of A.R.S. § 12-116 reflects a legislative intent to impose the time payment fee for each monetary assessment that is not paid in full on the date it is imposed by the trial court.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-116(B) — 2 cases
State v. Rivera, 836 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“The State contends that the language of A.R.S. § 12-116 reflects a legislative intent to impose the time payment fee for each monetary assessment that is not paid in full on the date it is imposed by the trial court.”
State v. Pennington, 873 P.2d 639 (Ariz. 1994).
“ISSUE Whether A.R.S. § 12-116 requires a time payment fee for each time payment plan assessed against a defendant.”
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.