Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 13
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002 (2026)

Forgery; classification; definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

13-2002. Forgery; classification; definitions

A. A person commits forgery if, with intent to defraud, the person:

1. Falsely makes, completes or alters a written instrument; or

2. Knowingly possesses a forged instrument; or

3. Offers or presents, whether accepted or not, a forged instrument or one that contains false information.

B. The possession of five or more forged instruments may give rise to an inference that the instruments are possessed with an intent to defraud.

C. Forgery is a class 4 felony, including if the forged instrument is a gift card, except that if the forged instrument is used in connection with the purchase, lease or renting of a dwelling that is used as a drop house it is a class 3 felony.

D. For the purposes of this section:

1. "Drop house" means property that is used to facilitate smuggling pursuant to section 13-2319.

2. "Gift card" has the same meaning prescribed in section 13-1813.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: Moreno v. Jones, 139 P.3d 612 (Ariz. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Moreno v. Jones, 139 P.3d 612 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 19× “§ 16-1020, not A.R.S. § 13-2002. First, we believe that “petition forgery” would ordinarily be understood to refer to falsely signing another’s name to a petition or to otherwise fabricating signed petitions.”
State v. Williams, 656 P.2d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 16× “Seventy year old Herbert Lewis Williams was indicted by the Yuma County Grand Jury on March 12, 1981, for the crimes of forgery, a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(3), and theft, also a class four felony, in violation of A.”
State v. McGann, 645 P.2d 811 (Ariz. 1982). · cites it 4× “§ 13-421 [now A.R.S. § 13-2002]. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions after an appeal through advisory counsel.”
Hernandez v. Lynch, 167 P.3d 1264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(2) (2006). Petitioner was released on his own recognizance after an initial appearance hearing on March 17, 2007.”
State v. Sullivan, 69 P.3d 1006 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “The particular subsection of § 13-2002 under which appellant was charged requires an intent to defraud coupled with offering or presenting a forged instrument or one that contains false information.”
Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004). · cites it 5× “The Court therefore agrees with the Defendants that this allegation does not support a forgery claim under A.R.S. § 13-2002. Citing to paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Plaintiff argues that the Complaint alleges that the Defendants “took a phony merchant account application for…”
State v. Bedoni, 779 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6× “Defendant also contends that the traffic citation was not “a written instrument” under A.R.S. § 13-2002; that he did not defraud anyone by signing the citation “John Begay” because to defraud means to deprive a person of property or any inter *483 est, estate or right; and that…”
State of Arizona v. Robert Gear, 372 P.3d 287 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 2× “Despite never reviewing her medical records from the preceding twelve months, he indicated on the written certification that he had done so. He also attested that “the information provided in the written certification is true and correct.”
State v. Jones, 218 P.3d 1012 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 4× “might merit prosecution under AR.S. § 13-2002 (forgery), A.R.S. § 13-2702 (perjury), or other criminal provisions.”
Hackin v. State, 427 P.2d 910 (Ariz. 1967). · cites it 6× “” The prohibition of this provision is, however, subject to the following limitation set out in A.R.S. § 13-2002: “Application for the writ [writ of habeas corpus, A.”
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen, 326 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “¶ 7 Pursuant to AR.S. § 13-2002(A)(1), “[a] person commits forgery if, with intent to defraud, the person .”
State v. Rea, 701 P.2d 6 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 5× “§ 13-2004, “A person commits criminal simulation if, with intent to defraud, such person makes, alters, or presents or offers, whether accepted or not, any object so that it appears to have an antiquity, rarity, source, authorship or value that it does not in fact possess.”
Show all 58 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002(1) — 1 case
Clark v. Clark (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002(A) — 10 cases
Felipe Espino-Castillo v. Eric Holder, Jr., 770 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2014).
Warfield v. Gardner, 346 F. Supp. 2d 1033 (D. Ariz. 2004). “The Court therefore agrees with the Defendants that this allegation does not support a forgery claim under A.R.S. § 13-2002. Citing to paragraph 35 of the Complaint, Plaintiff argues that the Complaint alleges that the Defendants “took a phony merchant account application for…”
State v. Bedoni, 779 P.2d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). “Defendant also contends that the traffic citation was not “a written instrument” under A.R.S. § 13-2002; that he did not defraud anyone by signing the citation “John Begay” because to defraud means to deprive a person of property or any inter *483 est, estate or right; and that…”
State v. Berliew (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Morris (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002(A)(1) — 7 cases
State of Arizona v. Vincent Michael Allen, 326 P.3d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “¶ 7 Pursuant to AR.S. § 13-2002(A)(1), “[a] person commits forgery if, with intent to defraud, the person .”
State v. Dickenson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
State v. Getscher (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
Hope Ayiyi v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2022).
Hope Ayiyi v. Merrick Garland (9th Cir. 2022).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002(A)(2) — 5 cases
Hernandez v. Lynch, 167 P.3d 1264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(2) (2006). Petitioner was released on his own recognizance after an initial appearance hearing on March 17, 2007.”
State v. McMurry, 909 P.2d 1084 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Berliew (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Mynatt (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Rockward (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002(A)(3) — 12 cases
State v. Williams, 656 P.2d 1272 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “Seventy year old Herbert Lewis Williams was indicted by the Yuma County Grand Jury on March 12, 1981, for the crimes of forgery, a class four felony, in violation of A.R.S. § 13-2002(A)(3), and theft, also a class four felony, in violation of A.”
State v. Jones, 218 P.3d 1012 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “might merit prosecution under AR.S. § 13-2002 (forgery), A.R.S. § 13-2702 (perjury), or other criminal provisions.”
Segura v. Cunanan, 196 P.3d 831 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Rea, 701 P.2d 6 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “§ 13-2004, “A person commits criminal simulation if, with intent to defraud, such person makes, alters, or presents or offers, whether accepted or not, any object so that it appears to have an antiquity, rarity, source, authorship or value that it does not in fact possess.”
State v. Hester, 703 P.2d 518 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002(C) — 1 case
State v. Trotter (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2002(a)(3) — 1 case
Moreno v. Jones, 139 P.3d 612 (Ariz. 2006). “§ 16-1020, not A.R.S. § 13-2002. First, we believe that “petition forgery” would ordinarily be understood to refer to falsely signing another’s name to a petition or to otherwise fabricating signed petitions.”
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.