A. A person commits theft of means of transportation if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly does one of the following:
1. Controls another person's means of transportation with the intent to permanently deprive the person of the means of transportation.
2. Converts for an unauthorized term or use another person's means of transportation that is entrusted to or placed in the defendant's possession for a limited, authorized term or use.
3. Obtains another person's means of transportation by means of any material misrepresentation with intent to permanently deprive the person of the means of transportation.
4. Comes into control of another person's means of transportation that is lost or misdelivered under circumstances providing means of inquiry as to the true owner and appropriates the means of transportation to the person's own or another's use without reasonable efforts to notify the true owner.
5. Controls another person's means of transportation knowing or having reason to know that the property is stolen.
B. The inferences set forth in section 13-2305 apply to any prosecution under subsection A, paragraph 5 of this section.
C. A person who alleges that a theft of means of transportation has occurred shall attest to that fact by signing an affidavit that is provided by the law enforcement officer or agency when the report is taken in person or by signing and notarizing an affidavit that is provided by the law enforcement agency if the report is taken other than in person. If the affidavit is not taken in person by a law enforcement officer or agency, the person who alleges that a theft of means of transportation has occurred shall mail or deliver the signed and notarized affidavit to the appropriate local law enforcement agency within seven days after reporting the theft. If the appropriate law enforcement agency does not receive the signed and notarized affidavit within thirty days after the initial report, the vehicle information shall be removed from the databases of the national crime information center and the Arizona criminal justice information system. The affidavit provided by the law enforcement agency shall indicate that a person who falsely reports a theft of means of transportation may be subject to criminal prosecution.
D. Theft of means of transportation is a class 3 felony.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
54
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case:
State v. Dixon, 162 P.3d 657 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Dixon, 162 P.3d 657 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 13× “” § 13-1814(A)(4). On appeal, Dixon contends the evidence did not warrant an instruction on theft of lost or misdelivered property and the prosecutor’s argument to *20 the jury prejudicially misconstrued the meaning of the term “lost” as used in § 13-1814(A)(4).”
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449 (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 7× “¶14 We disagree with Garcia’s reasoning because § 13-1814, the vehicle theft statute, is limited only to theft of a “means of transportation” and has the specific requirement of an “intent to permanently deprive,” neither of which appears in the theft statute, § 13-1802.”
In Re Adam P., 34 P.3d 398 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 9× “delinquent of theft of means of transportation in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1814. At the adjudication hearing, Corey Johnson testified that he saw the juvenile driving a golf cart down his neighborhood street with a passenger.”
State v. Garcia, 334 P.3d 1286 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 6× “Similarly, the parties agree that theft of means of transportation is a single unified offense, meaning the subsections in A.R.S. § 13-1814(A) do not refer to separate crimes but, instead, describe different ways to commit the same single offense.”
State v. Thues, 54 P.3d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “*340 BACKGROUND ¶2 The State charged Brian Thues with theft of means of transportation, a class three felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1814, and alleged that he had three historical prior felony convictions.”
State v. Geeslin, 225 P.3d 1129 (Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 4× “She was charged with several crimes, including theft of a means of transportation in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5) (2001). At trial, Geeslin requested that the jury also be instructed on unlawful use of a means of transportation.”
State v. Ramos, 330 P.3d 987 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “” AR.S. § 13-1814(A). As set forth in AR.S.”
State v. Breed, 286 P.3d 806 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 9× “In this ease, Breed was charged with violating subsection (A)(5), which consists of these elements: (1) a person knowingly controls; (2) without lawful authority; (3) another person’s means of transportation; (4) knowing or having reason to know that the property is stolen.”
State v. STRECK, 211 P.3d 1290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “Discussion ¶ 3 Streck argues his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence because a tractor is not a “means of transportation” under A.R.S. § 13-1814 and, therefore, his conviction constitutes fundamental error.”
State v. Geeslin, 212 P.3d 912 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5) (Supp. 2008). Geeslin specifically asked for an instruction on unlawful use of means of transportation, which the trial court denied.”
State v. Wright, 155 P.3d 1064 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 3× “” A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(1) and (5). To rebut the mens rea or mental state element of the offense, Wright attempted to introduce psy *543 chiatric expert testimony about the results of his intelligence/psyehological evaluation.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005).
“”) § 13-1814 (2001). The State amended the indictment to allege prior offenses for purposes of sentencing enhancement under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1814(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1814(A) — 5 cases
State v. Ramos, 330 P.3d 987 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“” AR.S. § 13-1814(A). As set forth in AR.S.”
State v. Garcia, 334 P.3d 1286 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Similarly, the parties agree that theft of means of transportation is a single unified offense, meaning the subsections in A.R.S. § 13-1814(A) do not refer to separate crimes but, instead, describe different ways to commit the same single offense.”
State v. STRECK, 211 P.3d 1290 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“Discussion ¶ 3 Streck argues his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence because a tractor is not a “means of transportation” under A.R.S. § 13-1814 and, therefore, his conviction constitutes fundamental error.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1814(A)(1) — 15 cases
State of Arizona v. Bobby Ray Carter Jr, 469 P.3d 449 (Ariz. 2020).
“¶14 We disagree with Garcia’s reasoning because § 13-1814, the vehicle theft statute, is limited only to theft of a “means of transportation” and has the specific requirement of an “intent to permanently deprive,” neither of which appears in the theft statute, § 13-1802.”
State v. Garcia, 334 P.3d 1286 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Similarly, the parties agree that theft of means of transportation is a single unified offense, meaning the subsections in A.R.S. § 13-1814(A) do not refer to separate crimes but, instead, describe different ways to commit the same single offense.”
State v. Wright, 155 P.3d 1064 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“” A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(1) and (5). To rebut the mens rea or mental state element of the offense, Wright attempted to introduce psy *543 chiatric expert testimony about the results of his intelligence/psyehological evaluation.”
In Re Adam P., 34 P.3d 398 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“delinquent of theft of means of transportation in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1814. At the adjudication hearing, Corey Johnson testified that he saw the juvenile driving a golf cart down his neighborhood street with a passenger.”
State v. Breed, 286 P.3d 806 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“In this ease, Breed was charged with violating subsection (A)(5), which consists of these elements: (1) a person knowingly controls; (2) without lawful authority; (3) another person’s means of transportation; (4) knowing or having reason to know that the property is stolen.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1814(A)(4) — 2 cases
State v. Dixon, 162 P.3d 657 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“” § 13-1814(A)(4). On appeal, Dixon contends the evidence did not warrant an instruction on theft of lost or misdelivered property and the prosecutor’s argument to *20 the jury prejudicially misconstrued the meaning of the term “lost” as used in § 13-1814(A)(4).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1814(A)(5) — 25 cases
State v. Dixon, 162 P.3d 657 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“” § 13-1814(A)(4). On appeal, Dixon contends the evidence did not warrant an instruction on theft of lost or misdelivered property and the prosecutor’s argument to *20 the jury prejudicially misconstrued the meaning of the term “lost” as used in § 13-1814(A)(4).”
State v. Geeslin, 225 P.3d 1129 (Ariz. 2010).
“She was charged with several crimes, including theft of a means of transportation in violation of A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5) (2001). At trial, Geeslin requested that the jury also be instructed on unlawful use of a means of transportation.”
State v. Geeslin, 212 P.3d 912 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“See A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5) (Supp. 2008). Geeslin specifically asked for an instruction on unlawful use of means of transportation, which the trial court denied.”
State v. Breed, 286 P.3d 806 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
“In this ease, Breed was charged with violating subsection (A)(5), which consists of these elements: (1) a person knowingly controls; (2) without lawful authority; (3) another person’s means of transportation; (4) knowing or having reason to know that the property is stolen.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1814(C) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-1814(D) — 2 cases
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.