A. A person who is at least eighteen years of age or who has been tried as an adult and who stands convicted of a serious drug offense and who committed the offense as part of a pattern of engaging in conduct prohibited by this chapter, which constituted a significant source of the person's income, shall be sentenced to life imprisonment and is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis until the person has served not less than twenty-five years or the sentence is commuted.
B. A person who is at least eighteen years of age or who has been tried as an adult and who stands convicted of a serious drug offense and who committed the offense as part of the person's association with and participation in the conduct of an enterprise as defined in section 13-2301, subsection D, paragraph 2, which is engaged in dealing in substances controlled by this chapter, and who organized, managed, directed, supervised or financed the enterprise with the intent to promote or further its criminal objectives shall be sentenced to life imprisonment and is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis until the person has served not less than twenty-five years or the sentence is commuted.
C. A person commits an offense as part of a pattern of engaging in conduct prohibited by this chapter if the person's conduct involves at least three criminal acts that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.
D. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Serious drug offense" means any violation of, including any attempt or conspiracy to commit a violation of, section 13-3404.01, section 13-3405, subsection A, paragraphs 2 through 4, section 13-3407, subsection A, paragraphs 2 through 7 or section 13-3408, subsection A, paragraphs 2 through 7 involving an amount of marijuana, dangerous drugs or narcotic drugs having a weight that equals or exceeds the statutory threshold amount, a felony violation of section 13-3406 or any violation of section 13-3409.
2. "Significant source of income" means a source of income that exceeds twenty-five thousand dollars received during a calendar year without reference to any exceptions, reductions or setoffs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
7
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case:
State v. Nichols, 33 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Nichols, 33 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 30× “¶ 7 Section 13-3410(A), in contrast, is silent as to the identity of the fact-finder or the standard of proof; the statute is therefore not facially unconstitutional as was the statute in Apprendi .”
State v. Febles, 115 P.3d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “¶ 22 After Gross was decided, this court held that “the fact of drug-sale income greater than $25,000 [under A.R.S. § 13-3410(A) ] must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State Ex Rel. Goddard v. Gravano, 108 P.3d 251 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 2× “¶26 Applying these factors, we conclude that, even if this forfeiture were a fine, it would not be grossly disproportionate in light of the weighty penalties imposed by our Legislature for the conduct of the criminal enterprise, which include a sentence of twenty-five years to…”
State v. Padilla, 859 P.2d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“”) section 13-3410 (1989), which carries a mandatory life sentence.”
Fernando Navarro-Figueroa v. State of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “” In addition to aggravating circumstances, the state filed an allegation that Navarro-Figueroa is a serious drug offender under A.R.S. § 13-3410 and therefore subject to an enhanced sentence of life imprisonment.”
State v. Brown, 70 P.3d 454 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 2× “3d 1172, ¶ 7 , we held that “the fact of drug-sale income greater than $25,000 [under A.R.S. § 13-3410(A) ] must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3410(A) — 4 cases
State v. Nichols, 33 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“¶ 7 Section 13-3410(A), in contrast, is silent as to the identity of the fact-finder or the standard of proof; the statute is therefore not facially unconstitutional as was the statute in Apprendi .”
State v. Febles, 115 P.3d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“¶ 22 After Gross was decided, this court held that “the fact of drug-sale income greater than $25,000 [under A.R.S. § 13-3410(A) ] must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Brown, 70 P.3d 454 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“3d 1172, ¶ 7 , we held that “the fact of drug-sale income greater than $25,000 [under A.R.S. § 13-3410(A) ] must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3410(D)(1) — 1 case
State v. Nichols, 33 P.3d 1172 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“¶ 7 Section 13-3410(A), in contrast, is silent as to the identity of the fact-finder or the standard of proof; the statute is therefore not facially unconstitutional as was the statute in Apprendi .”
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.