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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4503 (2026)

Request for competency examination; jurisdiction over competency hearings; referral

✓ 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. At any time after the prosecutor charges a criminal offense by complaint, information or indictment, any party or the court on its own motion may request in writing that the defendant be examined to determine the defendant's competency to stand trial, to enter a plea or to assist the defendant's attorney. The motion shall state the facts on which the mental examination is sought.

B. The court may request that a mental health expert assist the court in determining if reasonable grounds exist for examining a defendant.

C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, after any court determines that reasonable grounds exist for further competency proceedings, the superior court shall have exclusive jurisdiction over all competency hearings.

D. The presiding judge of the superior court in each county, with the agreement of the justice of the peace or municipal court judge, may authorize a justice court or municipal court to exercise jurisdiction over a competency hearing in a misdemeanor case that arises out of the justice court or municipal court.

E. A justice of the peace or municipal court judge, with the approval of the presiding judge of the superior court and the justice or judge of the receiving court, may refer a competency hearing to another justice court or municipal court that is located in the county.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Potter v. Vanderpool, 240 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Potter v. Vanderpool, 240 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Section 13-4503, A.R.S., which is entitled "Request for competency examination,” essentially mirrors Rule 11.”
State v. Delahanty, 250 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 4× “2(c), the court “may order that a preliminary examination be conducted pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4503(C) to assist the court in determining if reasonable grounds exist to order further examination of the defendant.”
State v. Silva, 216 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-4503(D) (2001); see also Ariz.”
State v. Hon. gates/apolinar Altamirano, 410 P.3d 433 (Ariz. 2018). · cites it 2× “§ 13-754 (authorizing a court, unless defendant objects, to order a competency exam in a capital case); A.R.S. § 13-4503 (stating courts have the authority to order a competency exam in a noncapital case); A.”
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad, 513 P.3d 1095 (Ariz. 2022). · cites it 5× “The trial court appointed two psychologists, Dr. Harris and Dr. Geary, to conduct the examination.”
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Off., 540 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 11× “” § 13-4504(B). ¶11 Second is the statutory scheme for civil commitments, set forth in title 36, chapter 5.”
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state, 574 P.3d 205 (Ariz. 2025). · cites it 3× “SB-24-0007-AP, 2025 WL 1477523 , at *14–15 ¶¶ 90–91 (Ariz. May 22, 2025) (discussing the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office’s policy, which requires a “reasonable likelihood of conviction” to charge a defendant); see also Pool v.”
State v. Brents, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0163 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2020). · cites it 4× “"Reasonable grounds exist if there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendant is not able to understand the nature of the proceedings against [the defendant] and to assist in [the] defense.”
State v. Gonzalez, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0087 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2022). · cites it 4× “Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 22 (1997) (“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.”
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state, 525 P.3d 1091 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 4× “But this statute applies to an original arrest, and “[a]ll arrests, either with or without a warrant, 8 ‘must be reasonable under the circumstances.”
Carol Ann Potter Debra Joy Merryman v. State of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “3 define the term “mental health expert,” prescribe the 2 Section 13-4503, A.R.S., which is entitled “Request for competency examination,” essentially mirrors Rule 11.”
State v. Tepper, No. 1 CA-CR 16-0294 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 15, 2017). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. §§ 13-4503(D) (2017), 13-4510(A) (2017).”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4503(A): 4 cases
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad, 513 P.3d 1095 (Ariz. 2022). “The trial court appointed two psychologists, Dr. Harris and Dr. Geary, to conduct the examination.”
Joel Carson v. Hon. gentry/state, 574 P.3d 205 (Ariz. 2025). “SB-24-0007-AP, 2025 WL 1477523 , at *14–15 ¶¶ 90–91 (Ariz. May 22, 2025) (discussing the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office’s policy, which requires a “reasonable likelihood of conviction” to charge a defendant); see also Pool v.”
Johnson v. Hon hartsell/state, 525 P.3d 1091 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “But this statute applies to an original arrest, and “[a]ll arrests, either with or without a warrant, 8 ‘must be reasonable under the circumstances.”
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Off., 540 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” § 13-4504(B). ¶11 Second is the statutory scheme for civil commitments, set forth in title 36, chapter 5.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4503(B): 3 cases
State v. Gonzalez, No. 1 CA-CR 21-0087 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2022). “Trostle, 191 Ariz. 4, 22 (1997) (“Trial judges are presumed to know the law and to apply it in making their decisions.”
State of Arizona v. Rahim Muhammad, 513 P.3d 1095 (Ariz. 2022). “The trial court appointed two psychologists, Dr. Harris and Dr. Geary, to conduct the examination.”
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Off., 540 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” § 13-4504(B). ¶11 Second is the statutory scheme for civil commitments, set forth in title 36, chapter 5.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4503(C): 5 cases
State v. Delahanty, 250 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2011). “2(c), the court “may order that a preliminary examination be conducted pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4503(C) to assist the court in determining if reasonable grounds exist to order further examination of the defendant.”
Potter v. Vanderpool, 240 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “Section 13-4503, A.R.S., which is entitled "Request for competency examination,” essentially mirrors Rule 11.”
State v. Brents, No. 1 CA-CR 19-0163 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 4, 2020). “"Reasonable grounds exist if there is sufficient evidence to indicate that the defendant is not able to understand the nature of the proceedings against [the defendant] and to assist in [the] defense.”
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Off., 540 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” § 13-4504(B). ¶11 Second is the statutory scheme for civil commitments, set forth in title 36, chapter 5.”
Carol Ann Potter Debra Joy Merryman v. State of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “3 define the term “mental health expert,” prescribe the 2 Section 13-4503, A.R.S., which is entitled “Request for competency examination,” essentially mirrors Rule 11.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-4503(D): 5 cases
Potter v. Vanderpool, 240 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “Section 13-4503, A.R.S., which is entitled "Request for competency examination,” essentially mirrors Rule 11.”
State v. Silva, 216 P.3d 1203 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “” A.R.S. § 13-4503(D) (2001); see also Ariz.”
State v. Tepper, No. 1 CA-CR 16-0294 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 15, 2017). “” A.R.S. §§ 13-4503(D) (2017), 13-4510(A) (2017).”
Patricia Adams v. Hon. Brenden Griffin City Prosecutor's Off., 540 P.3d 1221 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). “” § 13-4504(B). ¶11 Second is the statutory scheme for civil commitments, set forth in title 36, chapter 5.”
Carol Ann Potter Debra Joy Merryman v. State of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). “3 define the term “mental health expert,” prescribe the 2 Section 13-4503, A.R.S., which is entitled “Request for competency examination,” essentially mirrors Rule 11.”
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.