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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4021 (2026)

Competency to be executed; definition

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A. A person who is sentenced to death shall not be executed as long as he is mentally incompetent to be executed.

B. As used in this article, "mentally incompetent to be executed" means that due to a mental disease or defect a person who is sentenced to death is presently unaware that he is to be punished for the crime of murder or that he is unaware that the impending punishment for that crime is death.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1983–2017 · leading case: Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986). · cites it 2× “[*] See Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4021 (1978); Ark.”
Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). · cites it 4× “Code § 15-16-23 (1995); Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-4021 (West Supp.”
Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Ariz. 2001). · cites it 7× “Subsequently, by order dated July 1, 1999, the superior court entered a finding of incompetency pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4021, which defines “mentally incompetent to be executed” as “due to a mental disease or defect a person who is sentenced to death is presently unaware that he…”
Billiot v. Epps, 671 F. Supp. 2d 840 (S.D. Miss. 2009). “07(1) (Westlaw 2009); Ga.Code Ann. § 17-10-60 (Westlaw 2009); Ky.”
Provenzano v. State, 760 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2000). “1988) ("whether applicant was capable of comprehending the nature, pendency, and purpose of his execution"); see also Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4021(B) (West Supp.”
Poland v. Stewart, 41 F. Supp. 2d 1037 (D. Ariz. 1999). · cites it 2× “Faced with the same evidence, Arizona’s courts had applied procedural rules set forth in ARS §§ 13-4021 and 13-4024, and had denied a motion for examination of competency.”
Coe v. Bell, 89 F. Supp. 2d 922 (M.D. Tenn. 2000). “07 (“whether he or she understands the nature and effect of the death penalty and why it is to be imposed upon him or her”); Ga.Code § 17-10-60 (“unable to know why he or she is being punished and understand the nature of the punishment”); Md.”
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich, 402 P.3d 442 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 3× “R.S. § 13-4021(A), which suggests that those individuals should be restored to competency and be able to raise non-record based claims in a Rule 32 proceeding eventually.”
Ford ex rel. Ford v. Wainwright, 752 F.2d 526 (11th Cir. 1985). “Code § 15-16-23 (1981); Ariz.Rev. Stat.Ann. § 13-4021 et seq. (1982); Ark.”
Heck Van Tran v. State of TN, No. W1998-00175-SC-R11-PD (Tenn. Nov. 23, 1999). · cites it 2× “Code § 15-16-23 (1995); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4021 (West Supp.”
Tuzon v. MacDougall, 671 P.2d 923 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “We note that the supreme court has held that appointment of counsel in proceedings for post-conviction relief brought pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz.R. Crim.P., is mandatory upon a proper request from the defendant and a finding that the defendant is indigent.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4021(A): 2 cases
Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Ariz. 2001). “Subsequently, by order dated July 1, 1999, the superior court entered a finding of incompetency pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4021, which defines “mentally incompetent to be executed” as “due to a mental disease or defect a person who is sentenced to death is presently unaware that he…”
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich, 402 P.3d 442 (Ariz. 2017). “R.S. § 13-4021(A), which suggests that those individuals should be restored to competency and be able to raise non-record based claims in a Rule 32 proceeding eventually.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4021(B): 3 cases
Van Tran v. State, 6 S.W.3d 257 (Tenn. 1999). “Code § 15-16-23 (1995); Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-4021 (West Supp.”
Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Ariz. 2001). “Subsequently, by order dated July 1, 1999, the superior court entered a finding of incompetency pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4021, which defines “mentally incompetent to be executed” as “due to a mental disease or defect a person who is sentenced to death is presently unaware that he…”
Provenzano v. State, 760 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 2000). “1988) ("whether applicant was capable of comprehending the nature, pendency, and purpose of his execution"); see also Ariz.Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4021(B) (West Supp.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4021(b): 1 case
Billiot v. Epps, 671 F. Supp. 2d 840 (S.D. Miss. 2009). “07(1) (Westlaw 2009); Ga.Code Ann. § 17-10-60 (Westlaw 2009); Ky.”
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.