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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033 (2026)

Appeal by defendant

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

A. An appeal may be taken by the defendant only from:

1. A final judgment of conviction or verdict of guilty except insane.

2. An order denying a motion for a new trial. 

3. An order made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the party.

4. A sentence on the grounds that it is illegal or excessive.

5. An order that denied the defendant's eligibility to petition the court to seal the defendant's case records pursuant to section 13-911 if the sole basis for the appeal is the defendant's eligibility to petition the court.

B. In noncapital cases a defendant may not appeal from a judgment or sentence that is entered pursuant to a plea agreement or an admission to a probation violation.

C. A defendant may not appeal under subsection A, paragraph 1 or 2 of this section if the defendant's absence prevents sentencing from occurring within ninety days after conviction and the defendant fails to prove by clear and convincing evidence at the time of sentencing that the absence was involuntary.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 272 cases (75 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: State v. Regenold, 249 P.3d 337 (Ariz. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Regenold, 249 P.3d 337 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 56× “¶ 13 I respectfully dissent, but not because the majority does violence to the wording of A.R.S. § 13-4033. In fact, the majority's interpretation of that statute is plausible and perhaps preferable for the policy reasons set forth in ¶ 11, supra.”
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state, 295 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 34× “A.R.S. § 13-4033 (1989). But the increasing number of these appeals was straining our appellate justice system.”
State v. Raffaele, 471 P.3d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 21× “This right is codified in A.R.S. § 13-4033(A), which specifies the kinds of orders a defendant may appeal.”
State v. Bolding, 253 P.3d 279 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “¶ 9 We first address whether the statute applies to Bolding and, if so, whether it amounts to a retroactive application of substantive law.”
State v. Baca, 926 P.2d 528 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 16× “A.R.S. § 13-4033 (1989). A denial of a Rule 24.”
Wilson v. Ellis, 859 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 16× “The court of appeals dismissed his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4033(B) [1] and Ariz.R.Crim.P.”
State v. Jimenez, 935 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 13× “Prior to 1992, A.R.S. § 13-4033 provided that a defendant could appeal from: 1.”
State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez, 525 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. 2023). · cites it 36× “1 The legislature amended § 13-4033 effective January 1, 2023. See 2021 Ariz.”
State v. Brewer, 826 P.2d 783 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 13-4033; rules 26.15, 31.2(b), and 31.”
State v. Dawson, 792 P.2d 741 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 4× “The statute assumes the existence of subject matter jurisdiction conferred on the court when a defendant appeals from an illegal sentence pursuant to the jurisdictional authority of A.R.S. § 13-4033(3). It does not apply to increase our jurisdiction beyond the limits of A.”
State v. Perez, 836 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 10× “Under A.R.S. § 13-4033, a defendant may appeal from: 1.”
State v. Ponsart, 233 P.3d 631 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 13× “2d at 108, 109 ; see § 13-4033(A)(3) (providing right to appeal orders “made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the party”).”
Show all 272 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(0) — 3 cases
State v. Bolding, 253 P.3d 279 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 9 We first address whether the statute applies to Bolding and, if so, whether it amounts to a retroactive application of substantive law.”
State v. Soto, 241 P.3d 896 (Ariz. 2010).
State v. Soto, 224 P.3d 223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(1) — 2 cases
State v. Perez, 836 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Under A.R.S. § 13-4033, a defendant may appeal from: 1.”
State v. Taylor, 2 P.3d 108 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(2) — 6 cases
Nalbandian v. Superior Court, 786 P.2d 977 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Perez, 836 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Under A.R.S. § 13-4033, a defendant may appeal from: 1.”
State v. Choate, 725 P.2d 764 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
State v. Wilson, 82 P.3d 797 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Hovey, 854 P.2d 1205 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(3) — 5 cases
State v. Dawson, 792 P.2d 741 (Ariz. 1990). “The statute assumes the existence of subject matter jurisdiction conferred on the court when a defendant appeals from an illegal sentence pursuant to the jurisdictional authority of A.R.S. § 13-4033(3). It does not apply to increase our jurisdiction beyond the limits of A.”
State v. Wagstaff, 775 P.2d 1130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Perez, 836 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Under A.R.S. § 13-4033, a defendant may appeal from: 1.”
State v. Smith, 831 P.2d 877 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
State v. Sirny, 772 P.2d 1145 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(A) — 48 cases
State v. Brown, 177 P.3d 878 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Raffaele, 471 P.3d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “This right is codified in A.R.S. § 13-4033(A), which specifies the kinds of orders a defendant may appeal.”
Osterkamp v. Browning, 250 P.3d 551 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
State v. Cheramie, 171 P.3d 1253 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Martinson, 384 P.3d 307 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(A)(1) — 47 cases
State v. Raffaele, 471 P.3d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “This right is codified in A.R.S. § 13-4033(A), which specifies the kinds of orders a defendant may appeal.”
State v. Cox, 174 P.3d 265 (Ariz. 2007).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano, 323 P.3d 774 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
State of Arizona v. Brady Whitman Jr., 301 P.3d 226 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Smith, 263 P.3d 675 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(A)(2) — 15 cases
State v. Wilson, 82 P.3d 797 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Delgarito, 938 P.2d 107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Sanchez, 97 P.3d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
Fisher v. Kaufman, 38 P.3d 38 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Jimenez, 935 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “Prior to 1992, A.R.S. § 13-4033 provided that a defendant could appeal from: 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(A)(3) — 34 cases
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state, 295 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2013). “A.R.S. § 13-4033 (1989). But the increasing number of these appeals was straining our appellate justice system.”
State of Arizona v. Richard Allen Reed, 456 P.3d 453 (Ariz. 2020).
State v. Cazares, 72 P.3d 355 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Bryant, 200 P.3d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State of Arizona v. Anthony Connue Serrano, 323 P.3d 774 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(A)(3)(2010) — 1 case
State v. Stocks, 258 P.3d 208 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(A)(4) — 5 cases
State v. Ponsart, 233 P.3d 631 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “2d at 108, 109 ; see § 13-4033(A)(3) (providing right to appeal orders “made after judgment affecting the substantial rights of the party”).”
State v. Perez-Gutierrez, 530 P.3d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
State of Arizona v. John George Ponsart Jr. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Bobby Charles Purcell, 526 P.3d 146 (Ariz. 2023).
State of Arizona v. Andres Sanchez, 537 P.3d 794 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(A)(5) — 4 cases
State v. Dies (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
Wake v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026).
State v. Owens (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
Ayala v. Hon minder/state (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(A)(l) — 1 case
State v. Lucero, 220 P.3d 249 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(B) — 61 cases
State v. Regenold, 249 P.3d 337 (Ariz. 2011). “¶ 13 I respectfully dissent, but not because the majority does violence to the wording of A.R.S. § 13-4033. In fact, the majority's interpretation of that statute is plausible and perhaps preferable for the policy reasons set forth in ¶ 11, supra.”
Frank Hoffman v. Hon. chandler/state, 295 P.3d 939 (Ariz. 2013). “A.R.S. § 13-4033 (1989). But the increasing number of these appeals was straining our appellate justice system.”
Wilson v. Ellis, 859 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1993). “The court of appeals dismissed his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4033(B) [1] and Ariz.R.Crim.P.”
State v. Baca, 926 P.2d 528 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “A.R.S. § 13-4033 (1989). A denial of a Rule 24.”
State v. Jimenez, 935 P.2d 920 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996). “Prior to 1992, A.R.S. § 13-4033 provided that a defendant could appeal from: 1.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4033(C) — 24 cases
State v. Raffaele, 471 P.3d 685 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “This right is codified in A.R.S. § 13-4033(A), which specifies the kinds of orders a defendant may appeal.”
State v. Bolding, 253 P.3d 279 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011). “¶ 9 We first address whether the statute applies to Bolding and, if so, whether it amounts to a retroactive application of substantive law.”
State v. Hons. brearcliffe/vasquez, 525 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. 2023). “1 The legislature amended § 13-4033 effective January 1, 2023. See 2021 Ariz.”
State v. Soto, 224 P.3d 223 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Analysya Contreras, 557 P.3d 345 (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.