12-269. Probation funding; counties with a population of two million or more persons; assessment; support
A. The administrative office of the courts shall not disburse any direct state aid for probation services monies, including motor pool costs, that are appropriated for juvenile intensive probation services pursuant to section 8-353, state aid for probation services pursuant to section 12-262, adult intensive probation pursuant to title 13, chapter 9 and community punishment programs pursuant to article 11 of this chapter to a county with a population of two million or more persons.
B. A county with a population of two million or more persons shall maintain probation standards that are otherwise prescribed by law, except that the probation ratios and team compositions that are listed in sections 8-203, 8-353, 12-251 and 13-916 do not apply. The county shall maintain appropriate ratios of officers to probationers consistent with evidence based practices in differentiated case management and shall annually report its performance to the chief justice of the Arizona supreme court, the speaker of the house of representatives and the president of the senate on or before October 1 of each year. The annual report shall include, for each probation program, the rate of successful completion of probation, the rate of new felony convictions and the rate of commitment to the state department of corrections or the department of juvenile corrections.
C. In lieu of the assessment prescribed in section 12-114.01 and in addition to any other penalty, fine, fee surcharge or assessment authorized by law, a person shall pay a probation assessment in an amount determined by a county with a population of two million or more persons on every 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.
D. The monies collected pursuant to this section shall be deposited, pursuant to sections 35-146 and 35-147, in the adult probation services fund established by section 12-267 or in the juvenile probation fund established by section 12-268 in such proportion as determined by the board of supervisors.
E. For the purposes of sections 12-267 and 12-268, in a county with a population of two million or more persons, probation fees under section 13-901 and probation assessments under this section are not state appropriations.
F. Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the administrative office of the courts shall provide centralized support services to all counties from monies that are provided for probation programs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
8
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2022 · leading case:
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “01(A) (probation surcharge); § 12-116(A) (authorizing additional, $20 time-payment fee “on each person who pays a court ordered penalty, fine or sanction on a time payment basis”); AR.S. § 12-269(C) (probation surcharge in counties with two million or more people); AR.”
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶7 The statute authorizing the $20 probation assessment states as follows: Except as provided in § 12-269(C) [(authorizing a different probation assessment for counties having a population greater than two million)], in addition to any other penalty, 3 fine, fee, surcharge or…”
State v. Pelaez, 330 P.3d 1021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Similarly, A.R.S. § 12-269(C) was amended in 2011. Probation Officers, 2011 Ariz.”
State v. Hernandez-Perez, No. 1 CA-CR 18-0507 (Ariz. Ct. App. May 16, 2019).
· cites it 3× “§ 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. Stuebe, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0032 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).
· cites it 2× “Therefore, we vacate the imposition of these assessments imposed on count two.”
State v. Ruelas, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0110 (Ariz. Ct. App. July 21, 2022).
· cites it 2× “The penalty assessment is not a “stand-alone obligation” because it requires “some other fine, penalty or forfeiture be imposed as a predicate, similar to the requirements of the time payment fee.”
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “01(A) (probation surcharge); § 12-116(A) (authorizing additional, $20 time- payment fee “on each person who pays a court ordered penalty, fine or sanction on a time payment basis”); A.R.S. § 12-269(C) (probation surcharge in counties with two million or more people); A.”
State v. Castronova, 212 P.3d 887 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“Except as provided in § 12-269, in addition to any other penalty assessment provided by law, a probation surcharge of ten dollars *551 shall be levied on every fine, penalty and forfeiture imposed and collected by the superior, justice and municipal courts for criminal of-'…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-269(C): 6 cases
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“01(A) (probation surcharge); § 12-116(A) (authorizing additional, $20 time-payment fee “on each person who pays a court ordered penalty, fine or sanction on a time payment basis”); AR.S. § 12-269(C) (probation surcharge in counties with two million or more people); AR.”
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶7 The statute authorizing the $20 probation assessment states as follows: Except as provided in § 12-269(C) [(authorizing a different probation assessment for counties having a population greater than two million)], in addition to any other penalty, 3 fine, fee, surcharge or…”
State v. Pelaez, 330 P.3d 1021 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Similarly, A.R.S. § 12-269(C) was amended in 2011. Probation Officers, 2011 Ariz.”
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. Stuebe, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0032 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 30, 2020).
“Therefore, we vacate the imposition of these assessments imposed on count two.”
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.