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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041 (2026)

Fee of counsel assigned in criminal proceeding or insanity hearing on appeal or in postconviction relief proceedings; reimbursement

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

13-4041. Fee of counsel assigned in criminal proceeding or insanity hearing on appeal or in postconviction relief proceedings; reimbursement

A. Except pursuant to subsection G of this section, if counsel is appointed by the court to represent the defendant in either a criminal proceeding or insanity hearing on appeal, the county in which the court from which the appeal is taken presides shall pay counsel, except that in those appeals where the defendant is represented by a public defender or other publicly funded office, the county shall not set or pay compensation. Compensation for services rendered on appeal shall be in an amount as the supreme court in its discretion deems reasonable, considering the services performed.

B. After the supreme court has affirmed a defendant's conviction and sentence in a capital case, the supreme court or, if authorized by the supreme court, the presiding judge of the county from which the case originated shall appoint counsel to represent the capital defendant in the state postconviction relief proceeding. 

C. The supreme court shall establish and maintain a list of persons who are qualified to represent capital defendants in postconviction proceedings. The supreme court may establish by rule more stringent standards of competency for the appointment of postconviction counsel in capital cases than are provided by this subsection.  The supreme court may refuse to certify an attorney on the list who meets the qualifications established under this subsection or may remove an attorney from the list who meets the qualifications established under this subsection if the supreme court determines that the attorney is incapable or unable to adequately represent a capital defendant.  The court shall appoint counsel from the list. Counsel who are appointed from the list shall meet the following qualifications:

1. Be a member in good standing of the state bar of Arizona for at least five years immediately preceding the appointment.

2. Have practiced in the area of state criminal appeals or postconviction proceedings for at least three years immediately preceding the appointment.

3. Not previously have represented the capital defendant in the case either in the trial court or in the direct appeal, unless the defendant and counsel expressly request continued representation and waive all potential issues that are foreclosed by continued representation.

D. Before filing a petition, the capital defendant may personally appear before the trial court and waive counsel.  If the trial court finds that the waiver is knowing and voluntary, appointed counsel may withdraw.  The time limits in which to file a petition shall not be extended due solely to the change from appointed counsel to self-representation.

E. If at any time the trial court determines that the capital defendant is not indigent, appointed counsel shall no longer be compensated by public monies and may withdraw.

F. Unless counsel is employed by a publicly funded office, counsel appointed to represent a capital defendant in state postconviction relief proceedings shall be paid an hourly rate of not to exceed $100 per hour unless a higher rate, not to exceed $200 per hour, has been approved by the county board of supervisors.  Monies shall not be paid to court appointed counsel unless either:

1. A petition is timely filed.

2. If a petition is not filed, a notice is timely filed stating that counsel has reviewed the record and found no meritorious claim.

G. The trial court shall compensate appointed counsel from county funds. The court or the court's designee shall review and approve all reasonable fees and costs.  If the attorney believes that the court has set an unreasonably low hourly rate or if the court finds that the hours the attorney spent are unreasonable, the attorney may file a special action with the Arizona supreme court. If counsel is appointed in successive postconviction relief proceedings, compensation shall be paid pursuant to section 13-4013, subsection A.

H. The county shall request reimbursement for fees it incurs pursuant to subsections F, G and I of this section arising out of the appointment of counsel to represent an indigent capital defendant in a state postconviction relief proceeding.  The state shall pay a portion of the fees incurred by the county out of monies appropriated to the supreme court for these purposes. The total amount that may be spent in any fiscal year by this state for indigent capital defense in a state postconviction relief proceeding may not exceed the amount appropriated in the general appropriations act for this purpose, together with additional amounts appropriated by any special legislative appropriation for indigent capital defense. The supreme court shall approve county requests for reimbursement after certification that the amount requested is owed.

I. The trial court may authorize additional monies to pay for investigative and expert services that are reasonably necessary to adequately litigate those claims that are not precluded by section 13-4232.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1997–2026 · leading case: Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 17× “Upon the filing of the notice by the clerk of the Supreme Court in a capital case, the Supreme Court, or if authorized by the Supreme Court, the presiding judge of the county from which the case originated, shall appoint counsel for the defendant pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4041 and…”
Anthony Marshall Spears v. Terry Stewart, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Corr., Opinion, 267 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2002). · cites it 14× “The Arizona legislature and supreme court promulgated ARS § 13-4041 and Rule 6.8 with the express intention of complying with Chapter 154.”
Jones v. Ryan, 327 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (D. Ariz. 2018). · cites it 6× “) The Arizona Supreme Court waived the requirements, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4041 and Rule 6.8(c) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the appointment of experienced appellate counsel in capital post-conviction proceedings.”
Gibson v. Turpin, 513 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. 1999). · cites it 2× “Code § 15-12-23 (a) (1995) (subject to judicial discretion); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-4041 (B), 13-4234 (D) (West Supp.”
Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Ariz. 2001). · cites it 4× “§ 13-4013(A) (providing for payment of counsel’s fees "in either a criminal proceeding or insanity hearing”) with A.R.S. § 13-4041(A) (providing for payment of counsel’s fees "in either a criminal proceeding or insanity hearing on appeal”).”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya, 554 P.3d 473 (Ariz. 2024). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-4041(B), (E); Ariz. R. Crim. P.”
Holmberg v. Leon, 938 P.2d 1110 (Ariz. 1997). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-4041. Pending before this court is a proposal to amend the rules of criminal procedure to require the appointment of two lawyers who meet certain standards to represent the defendant in a capital case.”
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 23× “We hold that neither § 13-4041 nor Rule 32.5 requires a trial court to determine whether a Rule 32 petitioner is competent before proceeding with and ruling on the PCR petition.”
State v. Chavez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “3d 442 , 448, ¶ 17 (2017) (“[T]he right to PCR counsel under § 13-4041(B) does not also create or include ‘a “statutory right” to competence.”
Stephen Elliot Powers v. State of Mississippi (Miss. 2023). “(citing Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 13-4041(B)), and a rule governing those proceedings required that post-conviction petitions “be accompanied by a declaration by the defendant stating under penalty of perjury that the information contained is true to the best of the defendant’s…”
Charles Rienhardt v. Ryan Thornell (9th Cir. 2026). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041 (B)–(C); Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041(0) — 1 case
Anthony Marshall Spears v. Terry Stewart, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Corr., Opinion, 267 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2002). “The Arizona legislature and supreme court promulgated ARS § 13-4041 and Rule 6.8 with the express intention of complying with Chapter 154.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041(A) — 1 case
Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Ariz. 2001). “§ 13-4013(A) (providing for payment of counsel’s fees "in either a criminal proceeding or insanity hearing”) with A.R.S. § 13-4041(A) (providing for payment of counsel’s fees "in either a criminal proceeding or insanity hearing on appeal”).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041(B) — 7 cases
State of Arizona v. Christopher Michael Montoya, 554 P.3d 473 (Ariz. 2024). “A.R.S. § 13-4041(B), (E); Ariz. R. Crim. P.”
Gibson v. Turpin, 513 S.E.2d 186 (Ga. 1999). “Code § 15-12-23 (a) (1995) (subject to judicial discretion); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 13-4041 (B), 13-4234 (D) (West Supp.”
Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002). “Upon the filing of the notice by the clerk of the Supreme Court in a capital case, the Supreme Court, or if authorized by the Supreme Court, the presiding judge of the county from which the case originated, shall appoint counsel for the defendant pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4041 and…”
Anthony Marshall Spears v. Terry Stewart, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Corr., Opinion, 267 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2002). “The Arizona legislature and supreme court promulgated ARS § 13-4041 and Rule 6.8 with the express intention of complying with Chapter 154.”
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich (Ariz. 2017). “We hold that neither § 13-4041 nor Rule 32.5 requires a trial court to determine whether a Rule 32 petitioner is competent before proceeding with and ruling on the PCR petition.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041(C) — 2 cases
Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002). “Upon the filing of the notice by the clerk of the Supreme Court in a capital case, the Supreme Court, or if authorized by the Supreme Court, the presiding judge of the county from which the case originated, shall appoint counsel for the defendant pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4041 and…”
John Fitzgerald v. Hon. myers/state Ex Rel Brnovich (Ariz. 2017). “We hold that neither § 13-4041 nor Rule 32.5 requires a trial court to determine whether a Rule 32 petitioner is competent before proceeding with and ruling on the PCR petition.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041(D) — 2 cases
Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002). “Upon the filing of the notice by the clerk of the Supreme Court in a capital case, the Supreme Court, or if authorized by the Supreme Court, the presiding judge of the county from which the case originated, shall appoint counsel for the defendant pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4041 and…”
Anthony Marshall Spears v. Terry Stewart, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Corr., Opinion, 267 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2002). “The Arizona legislature and supreme court promulgated ARS § 13-4041 and Rule 6.8 with the express intention of complying with Chapter 154.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041(G) — 2 cases
Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002). “Upon the filing of the notice by the clerk of the Supreme Court in a capital case, the Supreme Court, or if authorized by the Supreme Court, the presiding judge of the county from which the case originated, shall appoint counsel for the defendant pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4041 and…”
Anthony Marshall Spears v. Terry Stewart, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Corr., Opinion, 267 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2002). “The Arizona legislature and supreme court promulgated ARS § 13-4041 and Rule 6.8 with the express intention of complying with Chapter 154.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041(H) — 2 cases
Spears v. Stewart, 283 F.3d 992 (9th Cir. 2002). “Upon the filing of the notice by the clerk of the Supreme Court in a capital case, the Supreme Court, or if authorized by the Supreme Court, the presiding judge of the county from which the case originated, shall appoint counsel for the defendant pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4041 and…”
Anthony Marshall Spears v. Terry Stewart, Dir. of the Arizona Dep't of Corr., Opinion, 267 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2002). “The Arizona legislature and supreme court promulgated ARS § 13-4041 and Rule 6.8 with the express intention of complying with Chapter 154.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4041(J) — 2 cases
Jones v. Ryan, 327 F. Supp. 3d 1157 (D. Ariz. 2018). “) The Arizona Supreme Court waived the requirements, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4041 and Rule 6.8(c) of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, for the appointment of experienced appellate counsel in capital post-conviction proceedings.”
Amaya-Ruiz v. Stewart, 136 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (D. Ariz. 2001). “§ 13-4013(A) (providing for payment of counsel’s fees "in either a criminal proceeding or insanity hearing”) with A.R.S. § 13-4041(A) (providing for payment of counsel’s fees "in either a criminal proceeding or insanity hearing on appeal”).”
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.