Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3554 (2026)
Luring a minor for sexual exploitation; classification
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official)
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
13-3554. Luring a minor for sexual exploitation; classification
A. A person commits luring a minor for sexual exploitation by offering or soliciting sexual conduct with another person knowing or having reason to know that the other person is a minor.
B. It is not a defense to a prosecution for a violation of this section that the other person is not a minor.
C. Luring a minor for sexual exploitation is a class 3 felony, and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is punishable pursuant to section 13-705. A person who is convicted of a violation of this section is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served or commuted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Mejak v. Granville, 136 P.3d 874 (Ariz. 2006).
Mejak v. Granville, 136 P.3d 874 (Ariz. 2006). “2 When Mejak arrived at the agreed-upon location, he was greeted by news cameras. The police were given videotapes of the confrontation and transcripts of the online conversations.”
Boynton v. Anderson, 66 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “01 from the indictment arguing that A.R.S. § 13-3554 is not a “dangerous crime against children.”
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Polk v. Hon. campbell/francis Frederick Kraps, 372 P.3d 929 (Ariz. 2016). “2011), which interpreted different versions of the sentencing provision in § 13-3554, the child luring statute. Under both versions, § 13-3554(C) provided that “[l]uring a minor for sexual exploitation is a class 3 felony, and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is…”
State of Arizona v. Kevin Harry Moninger, 552 P.3d 519 (Ariz. 2024). “The crime of luring a minor for sexual exploitation, A.R.S. § 13-3554, can be such a crime. ¶2 In this case we endeavor to clarify § 13-3554’s allowable unit of prosecution and the factual basis necessary to support multiple luring charges.”
State v. Yegan, 221 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “He asserts that luring is a substantive offense under A.R.S. § 13-3554 and is therefore completed when a person solicits sexual conduct with a minor having reason to know the person solicited was under fifteen.”
State v. Regenold, 255 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “We agree; AR.S. § 13-3554 does not trigger the more severe sentencing range under A.”
Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Third, subsection (C), the penalty provision of A.R.S. § 13-3554, states that "if the minor is under fifteen years of age" the crime is punishable under the provisions of A.”
State v. Villegas, 258 P.3d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 1 Appellant Richard Villegas was charged and convicted after a jury trial of luring a minor for sexual exploitation in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3554. Villegas’s conviction stems from his correspondence, primarily via text message and electronic mail, with a Tucson Police…”
State v. Hollenback, 126 P.3d 159 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “Hollenback contends the trial court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal on the luring charge because A.R.S. § 13-3554 did not apply to his conduct.”
State v. Hazlett, 73 P.3d 1258 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 13-3555 (previously A.R.S. § 13-3554), which prohibits portraying an adult as a minor in any exploitive exhibition: A.”
State v. Rix, 536 P.3d 253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “Interpreting the “language and context” of the statute, along with “its history, purpose, and effects, we conclude[d] [that] the use of ‘solicit’ in A.”
State v. Colosimo, 142 P.3d 352 (Nev. 2006). “, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-3554 (B) (Supp.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3554(0) — 2 cases
State v. Regenold, 255 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “We agree; AR.S. § 13-3554 does not trigger the more severe sentencing range under A.”
State ex rel. Polk v. Campbell, 357 P.3d 144 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3554(A) — 15 cases
Mejak v. Granville, 136 P.3d 874 (Ariz. 2006). “2 When Mejak arrived at the agreed-upon location, he was greeted by news cameras. The police were given videotapes of the confrontation and transcripts of the online conversations.”
State v. Yegan, 221 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “He asserts that luring is a substantive offense under A.R.S. § 13-3554 and is therefore completed when a person solicits sexual conduct with a minor having reason to know the person solicited was under fifteen.”
Boynton v. Anderson, 66 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “01 from the indictment arguing that A.R.S. § 13-3554 is not a “dangerous crime against children.”
State v. Rix, 536 P.3d 253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “Interpreting the “language and context” of the statute, along with “its history, purpose, and effects, we conclude[d] [that] the use of ‘solicit’ in A.”
Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Third, subsection (C), the penalty provision of A.R.S. § 13-3554, states that "if the minor is under fifteen years of age" the crime is punishable under the provisions of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3554(B) — 9 cases
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Polk v. Hon. campbell/francis Frederick Kraps, 372 P.3d 929 (Ariz. 2016). “2011), which interpreted different versions of the sentencing provision in § 13-3554, the child luring statute. Under both versions, § 13-3554(C) provided that “[l]uring a minor for sexual exploitation is a class 3 felony, and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is…”
Mejak v. Granville, 136 P.3d 874 (Ariz. 2006). “2 When Mejak arrived at the agreed-upon location, he was greeted by news cameras. The police were given videotapes of the confrontation and transcripts of the online conversations.”
State v. Regenold, 255 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “We agree; AR.S. § 13-3554 does not trigger the more severe sentencing range under A.”
Shaffer v. State, 72 So. 3d 1090 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010). “Third, subsection (C), the penalty provision of A.R.S. § 13-3554, states that "if the minor is under fifteen years of age" the crime is punishable under the provisions of A.”
State v. Villegas, 258 P.3d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 1 Appellant Richard Villegas was charged and convicted after a jury trial of luring a minor for sexual exploitation in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3554. Villegas’s conviction stems from his correspondence, primarily via text message and electronic mail, with a Tucson Police…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-3554(C) — 10 cases
Boynton v. Anderson, 66 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “01 from the indictment arguing that A.R.S. § 13-3554 is not a “dangerous crime against children.”
State of Arizona Ex Rel. Polk v. Hon. campbell/francis Frederick Kraps, 372 P.3d 929 (Ariz. 2016). “2011), which interpreted different versions of the sentencing provision in § 13-3554, the child luring statute. Under both versions, § 13-3554(C) provided that “[l]uring a minor for sexual exploitation is a class 3 felony, and if the minor is under fifteen years of age it is…”
State v. Regenold, 255 P.3d 1028 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “We agree; AR.S. § 13-3554 does not trigger the more severe sentencing range under A.”
State v. Villegas, 258 P.3d 162 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 1 Appellant Richard Villegas was charged and convicted after a jury trial of luring a minor for sexual exploitation in violation of A.R.S. § 13-3554. Villegas’s conviction stems from his correspondence, primarily via text message and electronic mail, with a Tucson Police…”
State of Arizona v. Hon. James Marner; Hanees Mohamed Haniffa, 560 P.3d 338 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
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.