Arizona Revised Statutes
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4037 (2026)
Power of supreme court to correct and reduce sentence upon 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. Upon an appeal by the defendant either from a judgment of conviction or from sentence, if an illegal sentence has been imposed upon a lawful verdict or finding of guilty by the trial court, the supreme court shall correct the sentence to correspond to the verdict or finding. The sentence as corrected shall be enforced by the court from which the appeal was taken.
B. Upon an appeal from the judgment or from the sentence on the ground that it is excessive, the court shall have the power to reduce the extent or duration of the punishment imposed, if, in its opinion, the conviction is proper, but the punishment imposed is greater than under the circumstances of the case ought to be inflicted. In such a case, the supreme court shall impose any legal sentence, not more severe than that originally imposed, which in its opinion is proper. Such sentence shall be enforced by the court from which the appeal was taken.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 120
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. DePiano, 926 P.2d 494 (Ariz. 1996).
State v. DePiano, 926 P.2d 494 (Ariz. 1996). “We granted review on whether the sentence was constitutional and ordered supplemental briefing to consider whether we should reduce DePiano's sentence under A.R.S. § 13-4037(B), which authorizes the court to reduce sentences that, although constitutional, are otherwise excessive…”
State v. Jonas, 792 P.2d 705 (Ariz. 1990). “See A.R.S. § 13-4037. [2] Because defendant has not argued on review that the protection against cruel and unusual punishment would be any greater under the Arizona Constitution analog to the eighth amendment of the federal Constitution, see Ariz.”
State v. Dawson, 792 P.2d 741 (Ariz. 1990). “The state relies on the following provisions of A.R.S. § 13-4037: A. Upon an appeal by the defendant either from a judgment of conviction or from sentence, if an illegal sentence has been imposed upon a lawful verdict or finding of guilty by the trial court, the supreme court…”
State v. Davis, 79 P.3d 64 (Ariz. 2003). “" A.R.S. § 13-4037(B) (2001) (allowing imposition of "any legal sentence").”
State v. Long, 83 P.3d 618 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “In the exercise of our discretion, we decline to reduce Long’s sentence pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4037. See id.”
State v. Cruz-Mata, 674 P.2d 1368 (Ariz. 1983). “CAMERON, Justice, dissenting. I regret that I must dissent. Just last year we stated: pursuant to statute presentence incarceration time may be applied only once, and once applied, may not be applied again.”
State v. Ethington, 592 P.2d 768 (Ariz. 1979). “Since we have found no clear abuse of discretion, and the sentence is within statutory limits, we decline to reduce *575 the sentence pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4037(B) (formerly A.R.S. § 13-1717(B)).”
State v. Berger, 103 P.3d 298 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “Invocation of A.R.S. § 13-4037 ¶ 30 Berger asks us to exercise the authority of A.”
State v. Bartlett, 792 P.2d 692 (Ariz. 1990). “Defendant petitioned this court for review of this decision; we granted review only of the constitutional issue whether defendant’s sentences are unconstitutionally cruel and unusual under the particular facts of this case.”
State v. Martinez, 189 P.3d 348 (Ariz. 2008). “Because the legislature expressly abolished independent review for murders committed after August 1, 2002, any reliance on A.R.S § 13-4037 in the context of capital sentencing is misplaced.”
State v. Gordon, 610 P.2d 59 (Ariz. 1980). “” We find that the trial judge complied with § 13-708 by indicating his familiarity with the presentence report and by proffering reasons why the acts committed by defendants warranted the sentences about to be imposed.”
State v. Watson, 459 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020). “182, 183 , ¶¶ 5–6, 20 (2008) (citing A.R.S. § 13-4037, which permits correction of an illegal sentence, in decision vacating illegal lifetime probation term); State v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4037(A) — 32 cases
State v. Smith, 159 P.3d 531 (Ariz. 2007).
State v. Brewer, 826 P.2d 783 (Ariz. 1992).
State v. Harrod, 183 P.3d 519 (Ariz. 2008).
State v. McCray, 183 P.3d 503 (Ariz. 2008).
State v. Garcia, 334 P.3d 1286 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4037(A)(1) — 1 case
Thornell (D. Ariz. 2026).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4037(B) — 28 cases
State v. DePiano, 926 P.2d 494 (Ariz. 1996). “We granted review on whether the sentence was constitutional and ordered supplemental briefing to consider whether we should reduce DePiano's sentence under A.R.S. § 13-4037(B), which authorizes the court to reduce sentences that, although constitutional, are otherwise excessive…”
State v. Davis, 79 P.3d 64 (Ariz. 2003). “" A.R.S. § 13-4037(B) (2001) (allowing imposition of "any legal sentence").”
State v. Jonas, 792 P.2d 705 (Ariz. 1990). “See A.R.S. § 13-4037. [2] Because defendant has not argued on review that the protection against cruel and unusual punishment would be any greater under the Arizona Constitution analog to the eighth amendment of the federal Constitution, see Ariz.”
State v. Ethington, 592 P.2d 768 (Ariz. 1979). “Since we have found no clear abuse of discretion, and the sentence is within statutory limits, we decline to reduce *575 the sentence pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4037(B) (formerly A.R.S. § 13-1717(B)).”
State v. Long, 83 P.3d 618 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “In the exercise of our discretion, we decline to reduce Long’s sentence pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4037. See id.”
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.