Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106 (2026)
Death of convicted defendant; dismissal of appellate and postconviction proceedings
✓ current as of May 2026 Cite as: Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106 (2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
A. On a convicted defendant's death, the court shall dismiss any pending appeal or postconviction proceeding.
B. A convicted defendant's death does not abate the defendant's criminal conviction or sentence of imprisonment or any restitution, fine or assessment imposed by the sentencing court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 32
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1967–2025 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed (2020)
“¶2 We here decide whether the legislature possessed authority to enact § 13-106, and, if so, whether § 13-106(A) nevertheless violates our state constitution by divesting defendants of their right to appeal.”
State v. Reed (2019)
“A.R.S. § 13-106. ¶ 5 Enacted effective July 24, 2014, A.”
State v. Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred & Thirty-Eight Dollars ($19,238.00) in United States Currency (1987)
“This appeal is from summary judgment forfeiting the interest of John Paul Bau-man in certain residential property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-106 [Replaced by A.R.S. § 13-4301 to -4315] and A.”
Taylor v. Cruikshank (2006)
“See Gerber, supra, 107-2 (“This statute extends the five-year limitation established in former A.R.S. § 13-106 to seven years, beginning from the date of discovery as opposed to the commission of a crime.”
State v. Fogel (1972)
“duly returned and presented by the grand jury in open court, and there received and filed.” There is no doubt that more than five years has elapsed between the time the offenses were allegedly committed and the return by the grand jury of the indictment in 1969.”
State v. Gum (2007)
“The State argued that the prosecution was not barred based on the new statute of limitations adopted as part of Arizona’s then “new criminal code” effective October 1, 1978, A.”
State v. Dunlap (1996)
“§ ) 13-107(A) (formerly AR.S. § 13-106(A)). However, such statutes “do[ ] not fully define [defendant’s] rights with respect to the events occurring prior to the indictment.”
Martin v. Superior Court (1983)
“Former A.R.S. § 13-106, in effect at the time counts two through six were allegedly committed, prescribed a five-year time limitation for the commence *100 ment of a prosecution of a felony.”
In Re One 1983 Toyota (1991)
“The statute that replaced § 36-1041, § 13-106, incorporated concerns for the rights of innocent owners.”
State v. Will (1983)
“On December 28,1981, Loreain Tolle, who is appellee’s live-in boyfriend, sold cocaine to a Greg Manos in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant at the intersection of Oracle Road and Magee in Pima County.”
State v. Barrett (1986)
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-106 prescribes the procedure by which the state may seek forfeiture of property involved in a crime.”
State v. Jacobsen (1984)
“§ 13-3409 are required to be accomplished in accordance with the procedure set forth in A.R.S. § 13-106, which provides in part: “B.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106(A) — 4 cases
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed (2020)
“¶2 We here decide whether the legislature possessed authority to enact § 13-106, and, if so, whether § 13-106(A) nevertheless violates our state constitution by divesting defendants of their right to appeal.”
State v. Reed (2019)
“A.R.S. § 13-106. ¶ 5 Enacted effective July 24, 2014, A.”
State v. Dunlap (1996)
“§ ) 13-107(A) (formerly AR.S. § 13-106(A)). However, such statutes “do[ ] not fully define [defendant’s] rights with respect to the events occurring prior to the indictment.”
State v. Reed (2020)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106(B) — 6 cases
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed (2020)
“¶2 We here decide whether the legislature possessed authority to enact § 13-106, and, if so, whether § 13-106(A) nevertheless violates our state constitution by divesting defendants of their right to appeal.”
Taylor v. Cruikshank (2006)
“See Gerber, supra, 107-2 (“This statute extends the five-year limitation established in former A.R.S. § 13-106 to seven years, beginning from the date of discovery as opposed to the commission of a crime.”
State v. Van Arsdale (1982)
State v. Lemon (1974)
State v. Escobar-Mendez (1999)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106(B)(1) — 1 case
State v. Jacobsen (1984)
“§ 13-3409 are required to be accomplished in accordance with the procedure set forth in A.R.S. § 13-106, which provides in part: “B.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106(B)(4) — 2 cases
State v. Will (1983)
“On December 28,1981, Loreain Tolle, who is appellee’s live-in boyfriend, sold cocaine to a Greg Manos in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant at the intersection of Oracle Road and Magee in Pima County.”
State v. Will (1983)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106(C) — 1 case
Taylor v. Cruikshank (2006)
“See Gerber, supra, 107-2 (“This statute extends the five-year limitation established in former A.R.S. § 13-106 to seven years, beginning from the date of discovery as opposed to the commission of a crime.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106(D) — 1 case
TR v. State (1978)
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-106(G) — 3 cases
State v. Nineteen Thousand Two Hundred & Thirty-Eight Dollars ($19,238.00) in United States Currency (1987)
“This appeal is from summary judgment forfeiting the interest of John Paul Bau-man in certain residential property pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-106 [Replaced by A.R.S. § 13-4301 to -4315] and A.”
State v. Barrett (1986)
“Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-106 prescribes the procedure by which the state may seek forfeiture of property involved in a crime.”
Nunez v. State (1984)
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.