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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2104 (2026)

Forgery of credit card; classification

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

A. A person commits forgery of a credit card if the person:

1. With intent to defraud, alters any credit card, falsely makes, manufactures, fabricates or causes to be made, manufactured or fabricated an instrument or device purporting to be a credit card without the express authorization of an issuer to do so, or falsely embosses or alters a credit card, or instrument or device purporting to be a credit card, or utters such a credit card or instrument or device purporting to be a credit card; or

2. Other than the cardholder, with intent to defraud, signs the name of any actual or fictitious person to a credit card or instrument for the payment of money which evidences a credit card transaction.

B. Forgery of a credit card is a class 4 felony.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases, 1980–2009 · leading case: State v. Fimbres, 213 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Fimbres, 213 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 17× “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
State v. Peeler, 614 P.2d 335 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. §§ 13-2104 and 13-1803. Since class 6 felonies can be treated by the court as misdemeanors under A.”
State v. McLamb, 932 P.2d 266 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 13-1504(2) (unlawful to enter and look into residential structure without lawful “authority”); § 13-1803 (unlawful use of means of transportation is temporary "unauthorized” control over another’s means of transportation); § 13-2104 (forgery of credit card is alteration of…”
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 17× “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that 22 Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2104(A): 2 cases
State v. Fimbres, 213 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that 22 Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2104(A)(1): 2 cases
State v. Fimbres, 213 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that 22 Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2104(A)(2): 2 cases
State v. Fimbres, 213 P.3d 1020 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that 22 Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-2104(B): 1 case
State of Arizona v. Javier Fimbres (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Because the jurors were instructed that § 13-2104 has two parts, because each juror was given a copy of the indictment showing that 22 Fimbres was charged only under subsection (A)(2), and because the jury’s verdicts stated it found Fimbres guilty “as alleged .”
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.