A. The county attorney shall bring a criminal prosecution against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is fifteen, sixteen or seventeen years of age at the time the alleged offense is committed and the juvenile is accused of any of the following offenses:
1. First degree murder in violation of section 13-1105.
2. Second degree murder in violation of section 13-1104.
3. Forcible sexual assault in violation of section 13-1406.
4. Armed robbery in violation of section 13-1904.
5. Any other violent felony offense.
6. Any felony offense committed by a chronic felony offender.
7. Any offense that is properly joined to an offense listed in this subsection.
B. Except as provided in subsection A of this section, the county attorney may bring a criminal prosecution against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is at least fourteen years of age at the time the alleged offense is committed and the juvenile is accused of any of the following offenses:
1. A class 1 felony.
2. A class 2 felony.
3. A class 3 felony in violation of any offense in chapters 10 through 17 or chapter 19 or 23 of this title.
4. A class 3, 4, 5 or 6 felony involving a dangerous offense.
5. Any felony offense committed by a chronic felony offender.
6. Any offense that is properly joined to an offense listed in this subsection.
C. A criminal prosecution shall be brought against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile has been accused of a criminal offense and has a historical prior felony conviction.
D. At the time the county attorney files a complaint or indictment the county attorney shall file a notice stating that the juvenile is a chronic felony offender. Subject to subsection E of this section, the notice shall establish and confer jurisdiction over the juvenile as a chronic felony offender.
E. On motion of the juvenile the court shall hold a hearing after arraignment and before trial to determine if a juvenile is a chronic felony offender. At the hearing the state shall prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the juvenile is a chronic felony offender. If the court does not find that the juvenile is a chronic felony offender, the court shall transfer the juvenile to the juvenile court pursuant to section 8-302. If the court finds that the juvenile is a chronic felony offender or if the juvenile does not file a motion to determine if the juvenile is a chronic felony offender, the criminal prosecution shall continue.
F. Except as provided in section 13-921, a person who is charged pursuant to this section shall be sentenced in the criminal court in the same manner as an adult for any offense for which the person is convicted.
G. Unless otherwise provided by law, nothing in this section shall be construed as to confer jurisdiction in the juvenile court over any person who is eighteen years of age or older.
H. For the purposes of this section:
1. "Accused" means a juvenile against whom a complaint, information or indictment is filed.
2. "Chronic felony offender" means a juvenile who has had two prior and separate adjudications and dispositions for conduct that would constitute a historical prior felony conviction if the juvenile had been tried as an adult.
3. "Forcible sexual assault" means sexual assault pursuant to section 13-1406 that is committed without consent as defined in section 13-1401, paragraph 7, subdivision (a).
4. "Other violent felony offense" means:
(a) Aggravated assault pursuant to section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraph 1.
(b) Aggravated assault pursuant to section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraph 2 involving the use of a deadly weapon.
(c) Drive by shooting pursuant to section 13-1209.
(d) Discharging a firearm at a structure pursuant to section 13-1211.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
47
cases (
7 in the last 5 years), 1971–2024 · leading case:
State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 48× “The July minute entry also reflected the juvenile court’s warning to Rodriguez that he was a “repeat felony juvenile offender,” subject to prosecution as an adult if he were to be arrested for another felony offense.”
State v. Davolt, 84 P.3d 456 (Ariz. 2004).
· cites it 9× “Automatic Filing Statute ¶ 97 Finally, we address Davolt’s claim that the tandem death penalties imposed in this case under the procedure mandated by Arizona’s Automatic Filing Statute, A.R.S. § 13-501 (2001), violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual…”
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N., 340 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 23× “Additionally, the issues raised involve the interpretation and application of § 13-105(22) and § 13-501, pure questions of law, see In re Aaron M.”
Gammons v. Berlat, 696 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 62× “During trial review, petitioner denied the allegations of the petition and, through counsel, requested a hearing to *149 determine his legal capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his conduct pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-501. [1] The State opposed the request for a hearing on the…”
State v. Oaks, 104 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 10× “¶ 12 To implement the amendment, the legislature enacted, inter alia, A.R.S. § 13-501, which provides in part: "The county attorney shall bring a criminal prosecution against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is fifteen .”
Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
“2011); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-501 (A) (West Cum.”
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
“" Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-501 (West 2001).”
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 26× “Although we accept jurisdiction of this special action, we deny relief because the respondent did not abuse his discretion in concluding the plain language of § 13-501 and A.R.S. § 13-1904, the armed robbery statute, require that McGuire be prosecuted as an adult.”
In Re Timothy M., 4 P.3d 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 10× “section 8-302(C) provides that: During the pendency of a delinquency action in any court of this state, on the motion of the prosecution and before the adjudication hearing, the court shall dismiss without prejudice any count in the petition charging an offense for which the…”
State v. Espinoza, 276 P.3d 55 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “By the terms of that jurisdiction-defining statute, the adult divisions of the superior court only acquire jurisdiction over those acts committed by a juvenile that are charged as offenses listed in A.R.S. § 13-501 or those offenses wherein “jurisdiction” has been specifically…”
United Servs. Auto. Ass'n v. DeValencia, 949 P.2d 525 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 5× “” Thereafter, the motion for summary judgment was submitted, and in a minute entry of December 8,1994, the trial court granted it, explaining: Under A.R.S. § 13-501, a, fourteen-year old has the mental capacity to form criminal intent.”
Andrews v. Willrich, 29 P.3d 880 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 4× “Petitioners responded that §§ 13-501 (B) and 8-302(B) violate the separation of powers doctrine and deprive them of their due process rights guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(A) — 13 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“The July minute entry also reflected the juvenile court’s warning to Rodriguez that he was a “repeat felony juvenile offender,” subject to prosecution as an adult if he were to be arrested for another felony offense.”
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N., 340 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Additionally, the issues raised involve the interpretation and application of § 13-105(22) and § 13-501, pure questions of law, see In re Aaron M.”
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Although we accept jurisdiction of this special action, we deny relief because the respondent did not abuse his discretion in concluding the plain language of § 13-501 and A.R.S. § 13-1904, the armed robbery statute, require that McGuire be prosecuted as an adult.”
In Re Timothy M., 4 P.3d 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“section 8-302(C) provides that: During the pendency of a delinquency action in any court of this state, on the motion of the prosecution and before the adjudication hearing, the court shall dismiss without prejudice any count in the petition charging an offense for which the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(A)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Davolt, 84 P.3d 456 (Ariz. 2004).
“Automatic Filing Statute ¶ 97 Finally, we address Davolt’s claim that the tandem death penalties imposed in this case under the procedure mandated by Arizona’s Automatic Filing Statute, A.R.S. § 13-501 (2001), violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual…”
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Although we accept jurisdiction of this special action, we deny relief because the respondent did not abuse his discretion in concluding the plain language of § 13-501 and A.R.S. § 13-1904, the armed robbery statute, require that McGuire be prosecuted as an adult.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(A)(4) — 2 cases
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Although we accept jurisdiction of this special action, we deny relief because the respondent did not abuse his discretion in concluding the plain language of § 13-501 and A.R.S. § 13-1904, the armed robbery statute, require that McGuire be prosecuted as an adult.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(A)(5) — 4 cases
State v. Oaks, 104 P.3d 163 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
“¶ 12 To implement the amendment, the legislature enacted, inter alia, A.R.S. § 13-501, which provides in part: "The county attorney shall bring a criminal prosecution against a juvenile in the same manner as an adult if the juvenile is fifteen .”
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“Although we accept jurisdiction of this special action, we deny relief because the respondent did not abuse his discretion in concluding the plain language of § 13-501 and A.R.S. § 13-1904, the armed robbery statute, require that McGuire be prosecuted as an adult.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(A)(6) — 3 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“The July minute entry also reflected the juvenile court’s warning to Rodriguez that he was a “repeat felony juvenile offender,” subject to prosecution as an adult if he were to be arrested for another felony offense.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(A)(7) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(B) — 8 cases
Andrews v. Willrich, 29 P.3d 880 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
“Petitioners responded that §§ 13-501 (B) and 8-302(B) violate the separation of powers doctrine and deprive them of their due process rights guaranteed by the state and federal constitutions.”
In Re Timothy M., 4 P.3d 449 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“section 8-302(C) provides that: During the pendency of a delinquency action in any court of this state, on the motion of the prosecution and before the adjudication hearing, the court shall dismiss without prejudice any count in the petition charging an offense for which the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(B)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(B)(3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(B)(4) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(B)(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(C) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(D) — 3 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“The July minute entry also reflected the juvenile court’s warning to Rodriguez that he was a “repeat felony juvenile offender,” subject to prosecution as an adult if he were to be arrested for another felony offense.”
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N., 340 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Additionally, the issues raised involve the interpretation and application of § 13-105(22) and § 13-501, pure questions of law, see In re Aaron M.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(E) — 4 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“The July minute entry also reflected the juvenile court’s warning to Rodriguez that he was a “repeat felony juvenile offender,” subject to prosecution as an adult if he were to be arrested for another felony offense.”
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N., 340 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Additionally, the issues raised involve the interpretation and application of § 13-105(22) and § 13-501, pure questions of law, see In re Aaron M.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(F) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(F)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(F)(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(G) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(G)(2) — 3 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 71 P.3d 919 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
“The July minute entry also reflected the juvenile court’s warning to Rodriguez that he was a “repeat felony juvenile offender,” subject to prosecution as an adult if he were to be arrested for another felony offense.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(H) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N., 340 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Additionally, the issues raised involve the interpretation and application of § 13-105(22) and § 13-501, pure questions of law, see In re Aaron M.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(H)(2) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N., 340 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Additionally, the issues raised involve the interpretation and application of § 13-105(22) and § 13-501, pure questions of law, see In re Aaron M.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-501(H)(4) — 1 case
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.