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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604 (2026)

Class 6 felony; designation

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

13-604. Class 6 felony; designation

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, if a person is convicted of any class 6 felony not involving a dangerous offense and if the court, having regard to the nature and circumstances of the crime and to the history and character of the defendant, is of the opinion that it would be unduly harsh to sentence the defendant for a felony, the court may enter judgment of conviction for a class 1 misdemeanor and make disposition accordingly or may place the defendant on probation in accordance with chapter 9 of this title and refrain from designating the offense as a felony or misdemeanor until the probation is terminated.  The offense shall be treated as a misdemeanor for all purposes until such time as the court may actually enter an order designating the offense a misdemeanor or a felony.  This subsection does not apply to any person who stands convicted of a class 6 felony and who has previously been convicted of two or more felonies.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section and until the court actually enters an order designating an offense a misdemeanor or a felony, the offense shall be treated as a felony conviction for all of the following purposes:

1. Placing the defendant on felony probation pursuant to chapter 9 of this title, including for the purposes of title 31, chapter 3, article 4.1.

2. For the purposes of DNA collection pursuant to section 13-610.

3. Determining the defendant's right to possess a firearm pursuant to chapter 31 of this title.

4. Being used as a historical prior felony conviction.

5. Being admissible for impeachment purposes in a subsequent trial.

6. Being used to enhance the sentence pursuant to chapter 7 of this title.

7. For the purposes of issuing a lifetime injunction under section 13-719, subsection A.

C. The court shall designate an undesignated offense as a misdemeanor on the defendant's successful fulfillment of the conditions of probation and discharge by the court.  The defendant successfully fulfills the conditions of probation if, in the discretion of the court, the defendant has satisfied the conditions of probation.  This subsection applies to a defendant who owes any outstanding monetary obligation unless the defendant owes victim restitution or has wilfully failed to pay the monetary obligation.

D. If a crime or public offense is punishable in the discretion of the court by a sentence as a class 6 felony or a class 1 misdemeanor, the offense shall be deemed a misdemeanor if the prosecuting attorney files any of the following:

1. An information in superior court designating the offense as a misdemeanor.

2. A complaint in justice court or municipal court designating the offense as a misdemeanor within the jurisdiction of the respective court.

3. A complaint, with the consent of the defendant, before or during the preliminary hearing amending the complaint to charge a misdemeanor.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 616 cases (20 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: State v. Tarango, 914 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Tarango, 914 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 131× “DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals. The language of former A.”
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 251× “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
Zamora v. Reinstein, 915 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1996). · cites it 53× “See A.R.S. § 13-604; 1993 Ariz.Sess.Laws Ch. 255, § 7.”
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). · cites it 41× “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 103× “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005). · cites it 46× “¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender.”
State v. Ault, 759 P.2d 1320 (Ariz. 1988). · cites it 60× “The State moved to amend the indictment *518 under A.R.S. § 13-604, to allege that Appellant had previously been convicted in California of six offenses: burglary, oral copulation by force and violence, and attempted rape by threats of bodily harm (occurring on one occasion);…”
State v. Gross, 31 P.3d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 29× “Therefore, A.R.S. § 13-604(P), as currently written, is unconstitutional because the “legislature .”
State v. Thompson, 27 P.3d 796 (Ariz. 2001). · cites it 30× “A.R.S. § 13-604 provides for sentence enhancement when the defendant has an “historical prior felony conviction” on his record.”
State v. Jonas, 792 P.2d 705 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 32× “See generally A.R.S. § 13-604. For example, if this defendant were charged with sale of marijuana in a quantity much larger than that involved here, he would be convicted of a class 2 felony; if the state alleged his prior adult felony convictions, he could be sentenced to a…”
State v. Perkins, 699 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1985). · cites it 41× “§ 13-1206 and § 13-604 but not to another statute in pari materia, A.”
State v. Cox, 37 P.3d 437 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 26× “§ 13-3401(36) (2001)), the use of a deadly weapon (A.R.S. § 13-604(F) (1999)), the infliction of serious physical injury ( Id.”
Show all 616 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(0) — 3 cases
State v. Ault, 759 P.2d 1320 (Ariz. 1988). “The State moved to amend the indictment *518 under A.R.S. § 13-604, to allege that Appellant had previously been convicted in California of six offenses: burglary, oral copulation by force and violence, and attempted rape by threats of bodily harm (occurring on one occasion);…”
State v. White, 770 P.2d 328 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Noble, 731 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. 1987).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(1) — 51 cases
State v. Navarro, 34 P.3d 971 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Glassel, 116 P.3d 1193 (Ariz. 2005).
State v. Gomez, 123 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. 2005).
State v. Cromwell, 119 P.3d 448 (Ariz. 2005).
State v. McCray, 183 P.3d 503 (Ariz. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(6) — 1 case
State v. Glasscock, 812 P.2d 1083 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(A) — 51 cases
State of Arizona v. Lee L.N., 340 P.3d 1085 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
State v. Alvarez, 67 P.3d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005). “¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender.”
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
State v. Bartlett, 792 P.2d 692 (Ariz. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(A)(2001) — 1 case
State v. Karr, 212 P.3d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(B) — 42 cases
State v. Jonas, 792 P.2d 705 (Ariz. 1990). “See generally A.R.S. § 13-604. For example, if this defendant were charged with sale of marijuana in a quantity much larger than that involved here, he would be convicted of a class 2 felony; if the state alleged his prior adult felony convictions, he could be sentenced to a…”
State v. Hannah, 617 P.2d 527 (Ariz. 1980).
State v. Stine, 906 P.2d 58 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Gillies, 691 P.2d 655 (Ariz. 1984).
State v. Smith, 194 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(B)(1) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Rose (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(C) — 30 cases
State v. Torrez, 687 P.2d 1292 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Thompson, 27 P.3d 796 (Ariz. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-604 provides for sentence enhancement when the defendant has an “historical prior felony conviction” on his record.”
Salerno v. Espinoza, 115 P.3d 626 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Rasul, 167 P.3d 1286 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(D) — 40 cases
State v. Tarango, 914 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. 1996). “DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals. The language of former A.”
State v. Laughter, 625 P.2d 327 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. Knorr, 921 P.2d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
State v. Lindsey, 720 P.2d 73 (Ariz. 1986).
State v. Tarango, 895 P.2d 1009 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(E) — 7 cases
State v. West, 862 P.2d 192 (Ariz. 1993).
State v. Tarango, 914 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. 1996). “DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals. The language of former A.”
State v. Alvarez, 67 P.3d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Diaz, 230 P.3d 705 (Ariz. 2010).
Kizzar v. Superior Court, 953 P.2d 175 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(F) — 35 cases
State v. Lara, 830 P.2d 803 (Ariz. 1992).
State v. Olsen, 760 P.2d 603 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
State v. Orduno, 769 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Garcia, 193 P.3d 798 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Cornish, 968 P.2d 606 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(F)(G) — 1 case
State v. Woolbright, 874 P.2d 1019 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(G) — 75 cases
State v. Tarango, 914 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. 1996). “DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals. The language of former A.”
State v. Hunter, 669 P.2d 1011 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
State v. Rodriguez, 612 P.2d 1067 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
State v. McCray, 183 P.3d 503 (Ariz. 2008).
State v. Lara, 830 P.2d 803 (Ariz. 1992).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(H) — 84 cases
State v. Perkins, 699 P.2d 364 (Ariz. 1985). “§ 13-1206 and § 13-604 but not to another statute in pari materia, A.”
State v. Noble, 731 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. 1987).
State v. Rodgers, 655 P.2d 1348 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
State v. Walton, 769 P.2d 1017 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Bartlett, 830 P.2d 823 (Ariz. 1992).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(I) — 19 cases
State v. Price, 171 P.3d 1223 (Ariz. 2007).
State v. Resendis-Felix, 100 P.3d 457 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Tarango, 914 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. 1996). “DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals. The language of former A.”
State v. Munninger, 142 P.3d 701 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Phillips, 678 P.2d 512 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(J) — 3 cases
State v. Quinonez, 976 P.2d 267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Vierra, 785 P.2d 573 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
State v. Johnson, 689 P.2d 175 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(K) — 85 cases
State v. Tarango, 914 P.2d 1300 (Ariz. 1996). “DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals. The language of former A.”
State v. Carter, 700 P.2d 488 (Ariz. 1985).
State v. Williams, 698 P.2d 678 (Ariz. 1985).
State v. Grilz, 666 P.2d 1059 (Ariz. 1983).
State v. Tarango, 895 P.2d 1009 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(L) — 4 cases
State v. Garcia, 860 P.2d 498 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Barger, 810 P.2d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
State v. Barrett, 644 P.2d 242 (Ariz. 1982).
State v. Jones, 937 P.2d 1182 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(M) — 34 cases
State v. Barnett, 691 P.2d 683 (Ariz. 1984).
State v. Ault, 759 P.2d 1320 (Ariz. 1988). “The State moved to amend the indictment *518 under A.R.S. § 13-604, to allege that Appellant had previously been convicted in California of six offenses: burglary, oral copulation by force and violence, and attempted rape by threats of bodily harm (occurring on one occasion);…”
State v. Rasul, 167 P.3d 1286 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Gordon, 778 P.2d 1204 (Ariz. 1989).
State v. Thompson, 27 P.3d 796 (Ariz. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-604 provides for sentence enhancement when the defendant has an “historical prior felony conviction” on his record.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(M)(2001) — 1 case
State v. Gallagher, 69 P.3d 38 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(N) — 27 cases
State v. Ault, 759 P.2d 1320 (Ariz. 1988). “The State moved to amend the indictment *518 under A.R.S. § 13-604, to allege that Appellant had previously been convicted in California of six offenses: burglary, oral copulation by force and violence, and attempted rape by threats of bodily harm (occurring on one occasion);…”
State v. McCurdy, 169 P.3d 931 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Crawford, 149 P.3d 753 (Ariz. 2007).
State v. Joyner, 158 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Noble, 731 P.2d 1228 (Ariz. 1987).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(N)(1995) — 1 case
State v. Thompson, 924 P.2d 1048 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(O) — 2 cases
State v. Kuntz, 100 P.3d 26 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Clough, 829 P.2d 1263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(O)(5) — 1 case
State v. Ault, 759 P.2d 1320 (Ariz. 1988). “The State moved to amend the indictment *518 under A.R.S. § 13-604, to allege that Appellant had previously been convicted in California of six offenses: burglary, oral copulation by force and violence, and attempted rape by threats of bodily harm (occurring on one occasion);…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(O)(6) — 1 case
State v. Ault, 759 P.2d 1320 (Ariz. 1988). “The State moved to amend the indictment *518 under A.R.S. § 13-604, to allege that Appellant had previously been convicted in California of six offenses: burglary, oral copulation by force and violence, and attempted rape by threats of bodily harm (occurring on one occasion);…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(P) — 40 cases
State v. Hensley, 31 P.3d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Gross, 31 P.3d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, A.R.S. § 13-604(P), as currently written, is unconstitutional because the “legislature .”
State v. Benak, 18 P.3d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Hampton, 140 P.3d 950 (Ariz. 2006).
State v. Guytan, 968 P.2d 587 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(P)(2001) — 1 case
Parent v. McClennen, 80 P.3d 280 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(R) — 15 cases
State v. Beasley, 70 P.3d 463 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
State v. Gross, 31 P.3d 815 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Therefore, A.R.S. § 13-604(P), as currently written, is unconstitutional because the “legislature .”
State v. Benenati, 52 P.3d 804 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Cox, 37 P.3d 437 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 13-3401(36) (2001)), the use of a deadly weapon (A.R.S. § 13-604(F) (1999)), the infliction of serious physical injury ( Id.”
State v. Henderson, 100 P.3d 911 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(R)(2001) — 2 cases
State v. Cox, 37 P.3d 437 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 13-3401(36) (2001)), the use of a deadly weapon (A.R.S. § 13-604(F) (1999)), the infliction of serious physical injury ( Id.”
Cherry v. Araneta, 57 P.3d 391 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(S) — 5 cases
State v. James, 297 P.3d 182 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
State v. Crawford, 149 P.3d 753 (Ariz. 2007).
State v. Kuck, 129 P.3d 954 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Kuck, 110 P.3d 1022 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
Palmer 049978 v. Arizona, State of (D. Ariz. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(T) — 6 cases
State v. Cox, 37 P.3d 437 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “§ 13-3401(36) (2001)), the use of a deadly weapon (A.R.S. § 13-604(F) (1999)), the infliction of serious physical injury ( Id.”
State of Arizona v. Phil Gutierrez, 278 P.3d 1276 (Ariz. 2012).
State v. Ochoa, 943 P.2d 814 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Guytan, 968 P.2d 587 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
State v. Blackman, 38 P.3d 1192 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(T)(l)(a) — 1 case
Zamora v. Reinstein, 915 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1996). “See A.R.S. § 13-604; 1993 Ariz.Sess.Laws Ch. 255, § 7.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U) — 7 cases
State v. Derello, 18 P.3d 1234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Quinonez, 976 P.2d 267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Graves, 932 P.2d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
Zamora v. Superior Court, 904 P.2d 1294 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Thompson, 7 P.3d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Decenzo, 18 P.3d 149 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Everidge, 932 P.2d 802 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
State v. Graves, 932 P.2d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Henry, 944 P.2d 57 (Ariz. 1997).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(1)(c) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005). “¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender.”
State v. Hickman, 980 P.2d 501 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(1)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Johnson, 380 P.3d 99 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Story, 75 P.3d 137 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(2)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State of Arizona v. Roberto Rosadillo Aguilar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(a) — 1 case
Zamora v. Superior Court, 904 P.2d 1294 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(l)(a) — 3 cases
Zamora v. Reinstein, 915 P.2d 1227 (Ariz. 1996). “See A.R.S. § 13-604; 1993 Ariz.Sess.Laws Ch. 255, § 7.”
Zamora v. Superior Court, 904 P.2d 1294 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
State v. Thompson, 7 P.3d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(l)(b) — 2 cases
State v. Derello, 18 P.3d 1234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Graves, 932 P.2d 289 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(U)(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Everidge, 932 P.2d 802 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V) — 6 cases
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005). “¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender.”
State v. Derello, 18 P.3d 1234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
State v. Ofstedahl, 93 P.3d 1122 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Thompson, 7 P.3d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(1) — 6 cases
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
State v. Thues, 54 P.3d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin, 69 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. 2003).
State v. Decenzo, 18 P.3d 149 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(1)(2001) — 1 case
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(1)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(1)(a)(i) — 1 case
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(1)(b) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005). “¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(1)(c) — 3 cases
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
State v. Thompson, 27 P.3d 796 (Ariz. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-604 provides for sentence enhancement when the defendant has an “historical prior felony conviction” on his record.”
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(1)(d) — 2 cases
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
State v. Pitre, 107 P.3d 939 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(1)(d)(1999) — 1 case
State v. Johnson, 380 P.3d 99 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(2) — 5 cases
State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Joyner, 158 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005). “¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender.”
State v. Anderson, 116 P.3d 1219 (Ariz. 2005).
State of Arizona v. Ramon Anthony Joyner (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(2)(a)(i) — 1 case
State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(2)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005). “¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender.”
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(2)(c) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Hauser, 105 P.3d 1158 (Ariz. 2005). “¶ 12 Under the version of A.R.S. § 13-604 in effect prior to 1993, a defendant convicted of multiple offenses not committed on the same occasion but consolidated for trial could be sentenced as a repeat offender.”
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(2001) — 1 case
State v. Karr, 212 P.3d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(3) — 2 cases
State v. Kuck, 129 P.3d 954 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
State v. Kuck, 110 P.3d 1022 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(l)(a) — 3 cases
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(l)(a)(i) — 2 cases
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(l)(b) — 4 cases
State v. Karr, 212 P.3d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Thompson, 27 P.3d 796 (Ariz. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-604 provides for sentence enhancement when the defendant has an “historical prior felony conviction” on his record.”
State v. Derello, 18 P.3d 1234 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(l)(c) — 7 cases
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). “See A.R.S. § 13-604(D)(a person convicted of a class three felony who has two or more historical prior felony convictions "shall be sentenced to imprisonment as prescribed in this subsection"); A.”
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
State v. Thues, 54 P.3d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
State v. Thompson, 27 P.3d 796 (Ariz. 2001). “A.R.S. § 13-604 provides for sentence enhancement when the defendant has an “historical prior felony conviction” on his record.”
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. Pitre, 107 P.3d 939 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(V)(l)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Christian, 66 P.3d 1241 (Ariz. 2003). “See A.R.S. § 13-604 *69 (1989). The 1993 amendments imposed time limits on alleging historical priors in many instances.”
State v. Thompson, 7 P.3d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(2) — 7 cases
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
State v. Crawford, 149 P.3d 753 (Ariz. 2007).
State v. Sharma, 165 P.3d 693 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Joyner, 158 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Rodriguez, 251 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(2)(a)(i) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(2)(b) — 3 cases
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
State v. Joyner, 158 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Smith, 173 P.3d 472 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(2)(c) — 5 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 251 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
State v. Avila, 170 P.3d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Smith, 194 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2008).
State of Arizona v. Victor Manuel Rodriguez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(2)(d) — 3 cases
State v. Smith, 194 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2008).
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
State v. Montoya (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(2)(e) — 2 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 251 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Avila, 170 P.3d 706 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(2)(vi) — 2 cases
State v. Goddard, 261 P.3d 477 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
State of Arizona v. Joseph Michael Goddard (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(3) — 2 cases
State v. Rodriguez, 251 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Victor Manuel Rodriguez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(3)(b) — 1 case
State v. Karr, 212 P.3d 11 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(4) — 1 case
State v. Harrod, 183 P.3d 519 (Ariz. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(4)(d) — 1 case
State v. Miles, 123 P.3d 669 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(W)(4)(e) — 3 cases
State v. Aguilar, 178 P.3d 497 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
State v. Gum, 153 P.3d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State of Arizona v. Roberto Rosadillo Aguilar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(c) — 1 case
Wright v. HireRight LLC (D. Ariz. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(s) — 1 case
Palmer 049978 v. Arizona, State of (D. Ariz. 2023).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604(w)(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Thomas, 175 P.3d 71 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “We hold that the trial court erred when it sentenced Thomas pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-604 based on its determination that his aggravated assault conviction constituted an "historical prior felony conviction" even though it occurred after the drug-related crimes for which Thomas…”
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.