A. If a person is convicted of multiple felony offenses that were not committed on the same occasion but that either are consolidated for trial purposes or are not historical prior felony convictions, the person shall be sentenced as a first time felony offender pursuant to section 13-702 for the first offense and as a category one repetitive offender for the second and subsequent offenses.
B. Except as provided in section 13-704 or 13-705, a person shall be sentenced as a category two repetitive offender if the person is at least eighteen years of age or has been tried as an adult and stands convicted of a felony and has one historical prior felony conviction.
C. Except as provided in section 13-704 or 13-705, a person shall be sentenced as a category three repetitive offender if the person is at least eighteen years of age or has been tried as an adult and stands convicted of a felony and has two or more historical prior felony convictions.
D. The presumptive term set by this section may be aggravated or mitigated within the range under this section pursuant to section 13-701, subsections C, D and E.
E. If a person is sentenced as a category one repetitive offender pursuant to subsection A of this section and if at least two aggravating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsection D apply or at least two mitigating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsection E apply, the court may impose a mitigated or aggravated sentence pursuant to subsection H of this section.
F. If a person is sentenced as a category two repetitive offender pursuant to subsection B of this section and if at least two aggravating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsection D apply or at least two mitigating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsection E apply, the court may impose a mitigated or aggravated sentence pursuant to subsection I of this section.
G. If a person is sentenced as a category three repetitive offender pursuant to subsection C of this section and at least two aggravating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsection D or at least two mitigating circumstances listed in section 13-701, subsection E apply, the court may impose a mitigated or aggravated sentence pursuant to subsection J of this section.
H. A category one repetitive offender shall be sentenced within the following ranges:
Felony Mitigated Minimum Presumptive Maximum Aggravated
Class 2 3 years 4 years 5 years 10 years 12.5 years
Class 3 2 years 2.5 years 3.5 years 7 years 8.75 years
Class 4 1 year 1.5 years 2.5 years 3 years 3.75 years
Class 5 .5 years .75 years 1.5 years 2 years 2.5 years
Class 6 .25 years .5 years 1 year 1.5 years 2 years
I. A category two repetitive offender shall be sentenced within the following ranges:
Felony Mitigated Minimum Presumptive Maximum Aggravated
Class 2 4.5 years 6 years 9.25 years 18.5 years 23 years
Class 3 3.25 years 4.5 years 6.5 years 13 years 16.25 years
Class 4 2.25 years 3 years 4.5 years 6 years 7.5 years
Class 5 1 year 1.5 years 2.25 years 3 years 3.75 years
Class 6 .75 years 1 year 1.75 years 2.25 years 2.75 years
J. A category three repetitive offender shall be sentenced within the following ranges:
Felony Mitigated Minimum Presumptive Maximum Aggravated
Class 2 10.5 years 14 years 15.75 years 28 years 35 years
Class 3 7.5 years 10 years 11.25 years 20 years 25 years
Class 4 6 years 8 years 10 years 12 years 15 years
Class 5 3 years 4 years 5 years 6 years 7.5 years
Class 6 2.25 years 3 years 3.75 years 4.5 years 5.75 years
K. The aggravated or mitigated term imposed pursuant to subsection H, I or J of this section may be imposed only if at least two of the aggravating circumstances are found beyond a reasonable doubt to be true by the trier of fact or are admitted by the defendant, except that an aggravating circumstance under section 13-701, subsection D, paragraph 11 shall be found to be true by the court, or in mitigation of the crime are found to be true by the court, on any evidence or information introduced or submitted to the court or the trier of fact before sentencing or any evidence presented at trial, and factual findings and reasons in support of these findings are set forth on the record at the time of sentencing.
L. Convictions for two or more offenses committed on the same occasion shall be counted as only one conviction for the purposes of subsections B and C of this section.
M. A person who has been convicted in any court outside the jurisdiction of this state of an offense that was punishable by that jurisdiction as a felony is subject to this section. A person who has been convicted as an adult of an offense punishable as a felony under the provisions of any prior code in this state or the jurisdiction in which the offense was committed is subject to this section. A person who has been convicted of a felony weapons possession violation in any court outside the jurisdiction of this state that would not be punishable as a felony under the laws of this state is not subject to this section.
N. The penalties prescribed by this section shall be substituted for the penalties otherwise authorized by law if an allegation of prior conviction is charged in the indictment or information and admitted or found by the court. The release provisions prescribed by this section shall not be substituted for any penalties required by the substantive offense or a provision of law that specifies a later release or completion of the sentence imposed before release. The court shall allow the allegation of a prior conviction at any time before the date the case is actually tried unless the allegation is filed fewer than twenty days before the case is actually tried and the court finds on the record that the person was in fact prejudiced by the untimely filing and states the reasons for these findings. If the allegation of a prior conviction is filed, the state must make available to the person a copy of any material or information obtained concerning the prior conviction. The charge of previous conviction shall not be read to the jury. For the purposes of this subsection, "substantive offense" means the felony offense that the trier of fact found beyond a reasonable doubt the person committed. Substantive offense does not include allegations that, if proven, would enhance the sentence of imprisonment or fine to which the person otherwise would be subject.
O. A person who is sentenced pursuant to this section is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis, except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B, until the sentence imposed by the court has been served, the person is eligible for release pursuant to section 41-1604.07 or the sentence is commuted.
P. The court shall inform all of the parties before sentencing occurs of its intent to impose an aggravated or mitigated sentence pursuant to subsection H, I or J of this section. If the court fails to inform the parties, a party waives its right to be informed unless the party timely objects at the time of sentencing.
Q. The court in imposing a sentence shall consider the evidence and opinions presented by the victim or the victim's immediate family at any aggravation or mitigation proceeding or in the presentence report.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
955
cases (
133 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case:
State v. Atwood
State v. Atwood (1992)
ariz · cites it 97×
“In support of his argument, defendant asserts that (1) Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in using defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct as an aggravating circumstance; (3) the trial court erred in finding no…”
State v. Greenway (1991)
ariz · cites it 110×
“Is Arizona's death penalty statute, A.R.S. § 13-703, unconstitutional? a. Was defendant's sixth amendment right to a jury trial violated because the judge, rather than the jury, made the finding as to the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors? b.”
State v. Roque (2006)
ariz · cites it 47×
“A.R.S. § 13-703(0, (D). “[T]he prosecution or the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances .”
State v. Murdaugh (2004)
ariz · cites it 75×
“1, § 1 (codified at A.R.S. § 13-703). The fair import of these authorities is that questions of fact that bear on sentencing must be decided by the jury.”
State v. Hoskins (2000)
ariz · cites it 74×
“Constitutionality of the Arizona Death Penalty Statute ś 82 Defendant, raising a series of challenges, argues that Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional both facially and as applied on the record before us.”
State v. Carlson (2002)
ariz · cites it 74×
“Statutory mitigation ¶ 57 Defendant must prove the mitigating factors listed in A.R.S. § 13-703 by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. McKinney (1996)
ariz · cites it 92×
“A.R.S. § 13-703. The state must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. King (1994)
ariz · cites it 78×
“Aggravating Factors The trial court found that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following aggravating factors set forth in A.R.S. § 13-703: 1. (F)(5) The defendant committed [these murders] as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of…”
State v. Brewer (1992)
ariz · cites it 76×
“That decision rests also with this court upon automatic appeal and is guided, above all, by the state's narrowly construed statutes specifying the limited circumstances for which a defendant may be deemed death-eligible, see A.R.S. § 13-703, regardless of defendant's own death…”
State v. Lavers (1991)
ariz · cites it 67×
“Although the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, some of the factors that may be considered include: (1) the aggravating circumstances in A.R.S. § 13-703, (2) the family's feelings regarding the decision to seek the death penalty, (3) the facts involved, (4) the…”
State v. Harding (1983)
ariz · cites it 76×
“The first is that applying A.R.S. § 13-703 (Arizona's death sentence statute) violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment embodied in the eighth amendment and Ariz.”
State v. Gretzler (1983)
ariz · cites it 48×
“Gretzler's condition thus does not make him an improper subject for either the retributive or deterrence justifications of punishment. Acceptable goals of punishment are served by submitting Gretzler's case to capital sentencing consideration.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(0) — 7 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(0)(3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(1) — 3 cases
State v. Roque (2006)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703(0, (D). “[T]he prosecution or the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(6)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(A) — 94 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(A)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(A)(2000) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(B) — 78 cases
State v. Atwood (1992)
ariz
“In support of his argument, defendant asserts that (1) Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in using defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct as an aggravating circumstance; (3) the trial court erred in finding no…”
State v. Hoskins (2000)
ariz
“Constitutionality of the Arizona Death Penalty Statute ś 82 Defendant, raising a series of challenges, argues that Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional both facially and as applied on the record before us.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(B)(1) — 5 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(B)(2) — 6 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(C) — 204 cases
State v. Roque (2006)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703(0, (D). “[T]he prosecution or the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances .”
State v. Lavers (1991)
ariz
“Although the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, some of the factors that may be considered include: (1) the aggravating circumstances in A.R.S. § 13-703, (2) the family's feelings regarding the decision to seek the death penalty, (3) the facts involved, (4) the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(C)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(C)(2001) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(C)(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(D) — 33 cases
State v. McKinney (1996)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703. The state must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(D)(2) — 3 cases
State v. McKinney (1996)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703. The state must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(DHE) — 1 case
State v. Brewer (1992)
ariz
“That decision rests also with this court upon automatic appeal and is guided, above all, by the state's narrowly construed statutes specifying the limited circumstances for which a defendant may be deemed death-eligible, see A.R.S. § 13-703, regardless of defendant's own death…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(E) — 120 cases
State v. Gretzler (1983)
ariz
“Gretzler's condition thus does not make him an improper subject for either the retributive or deterrence justifications of punishment. Acceptable goals of punishment are served by submitting Gretzler's case to capital sentencing consideration.”
State v. Atwood (1992)
ariz
“In support of his argument, defendant asserts that (1) Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in using defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct as an aggravating circumstance; (3) the trial court erred in finding no…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(E)(6) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F) — 95 cases
State v. Atwood (1992)
ariz
“In support of his argument, defendant asserts that (1) Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in using defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct as an aggravating circumstance; (3) the trial court erred in finding no…”
State v. Brewer (1992)
ariz
“That decision rests also with this court upon automatic appeal and is guided, above all, by the state's narrowly construed statutes specifying the limited circumstances for which a defendant may be deemed death-eligible, see A.R.S. § 13-703, regardless of defendant's own death…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(1) — 58 cases
State v. Atwood (1992)
ariz
“In support of his argument, defendant asserts that (1) Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in using defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct as an aggravating circumstance; (3) the trial court erred in finding no…”
State v. Murdaugh (2004)
ariz
“1, § 1 (codified at A.R.S. § 13-703). The fair import of these authorities is that questions of fact that bear on sentencing must be decided by the jury.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(10) — 9 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(2) — 122 cases
State v. McKinney (1996)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703. The state must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.”
State v. Roque (2006)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703(0, (D). “[T]he prosecution or the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(2)(1989) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(3) — 39 cases
State v. Brewer (1992)
ariz
“That decision rests also with this court upon automatic appeal and is guided, above all, by the state's narrowly construed statutes specifying the limited circumstances for which a defendant may be deemed death-eligible, see A.R.S. § 13-703, regardless of defendant's own death…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(4) — 12 cases
State v. Carlson (2002)
ariz
“Statutory mitigation ¶ 57 Defendant must prove the mitigating factors listed in A.R.S. § 13-703 by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Harding (1983)
ariz
“The first is that applying A.R.S. § 13-703 (Arizona's death sentence statute) violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment embodied in the eighth amendment and Ariz.”
State v. King (1994)
ariz
“Aggravating Factors The trial court found that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following aggravating factors set forth in A.R.S. § 13-703: 1. (F)(5) The defendant committed [these murders] as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(5) — 134 cases
State v. Harding (1983)
ariz
“The first is that applying A.R.S. § 13-703 (Arizona's death sentence statute) violates the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment embodied in the eighth amendment and Ariz.”
State v. Greenway (1991)
ariz
“Is Arizona's death penalty statute, A.R.S. § 13-703, unconstitutional? a. Was defendant's sixth amendment right to a jury trial violated because the judge, rather than the jury, made the finding as to the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors? b.”
State v. Hoskins (2000)
ariz
“Constitutionality of the Arizona Death Penalty Statute ś 82 Defendant, raising a series of challenges, argues that Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional both facially and as applied on the record before us.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(6) — 196 cases
State v. Lavers (1991)
ariz
“Although the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, some of the factors that may be considered include: (1) the aggravating circumstances in A.R.S. § 13-703, (2) the family's feelings regarding the decision to seek the death penalty, (3) the facts involved, (4) the…”
State v. King (1994)
ariz
“Aggravating Factors The trial court found that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following aggravating factors set forth in A.R.S. § 13-703: 1. (F)(5) The defendant committed [these murders] as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of…”
State v. Atwood (1992)
ariz
“In support of his argument, defendant asserts that (1) Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in using defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct as an aggravating circumstance; (3) the trial court erred in finding no…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(7) — 9 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(8) — 48 cases
State v. Greenway (1991)
ariz
“Is Arizona's death penalty statute, A.R.S. § 13-703, unconstitutional? a. Was defendant's sixth amendment right to a jury trial violated because the judge, rather than the jury, made the finding as to the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors? b.”
State v. Lavers (1991)
ariz
“Although the decision is made on a case-by-case basis, some of the factors that may be considered include: (1) the aggravating circumstances in A.R.S. § 13-703, (2) the family's feelings regarding the decision to seek the death penalty, (3) the facts involved, (4) the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(F)(9) — 34 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(FX1) — 2 cases
State v. Gretzler (1983)
ariz
“Gretzler's condition thus does not make him an improper subject for either the retributive or deterrence justifications of punishment. Acceptable goals of punishment are served by submitting Gretzler's case to capital sentencing consideration.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(FX2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(FX3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(FX5) — 2 cases
State v. Gretzler (1983)
ariz
“Gretzler's condition thus does not make him an improper subject for either the retributive or deterrence justifications of punishment. Acceptable goals of punishment are served by submitting Gretzler's case to capital sentencing consideration.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(FX6) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(FX7) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G) — 103 cases
State v. Atwood (1992)
ariz
“In support of his argument, defendant asserts that (1) Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional; (2) the trial court erred in using defendant's 1975 conviction for lewd and lascivious conduct as an aggravating circumstance; (3) the trial court erred in finding no…”
State v. King (1994)
ariz
“Aggravating Factors The trial court found that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following aggravating factors set forth in A.R.S. § 13-703: 1. (F)(5) The defendant committed [these murders] as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(1) — 126 cases
State v. King (1994)
ariz
“Aggravating Factors The trial court found that the state proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the following aggravating factors set forth in A.R.S. § 13-703: 1. (F)(5) The defendant committed [these murders] as consideration for the receipt, or in expectation of the receipt, of…”
State v. Murdaugh (2004)
ariz
“1, § 1 (codified at A.R.S. § 13-703). The fair import of these authorities is that questions of fact that bear on sentencing must be decided by the jury.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(2) — 28 cases
State v. Carlson (2002)
ariz
“Statutory mitigation ¶ 57 Defendant must prove the mitigating factors listed in A.R.S. § 13-703 by a preponderance of the evidence.”
State v. Roque (2006)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703(0, (D). “[T]he prosecution or the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(3) — 21 cases
State v. Carlson (2002)
ariz
“Statutory mitigation ¶ 57 Defendant must prove the mitigating factors listed in A.R.S. § 13-703 by a preponderance of the evidence.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(4) — 11 cases
State v. Hoskins (2000)
ariz
“Constitutionality of the Arizona Death Penalty Statute ś 82 Defendant, raising a series of challenges, argues that Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional both facially and as applied on the record before us.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(5) — 41 cases
State v. Hoskins (2000)
ariz
“Constitutionality of the Arizona Death Penalty Statute ś 82 Defendant, raising a series of challenges, argues that Arizona's death penalty statute is unconstitutional both facially and as applied on the record before us.”
State v. Greenway (1991)
ariz
“Is Arizona's death penalty statute, A.R.S. § 13-703, unconstitutional? a. Was defendant's sixth amendment right to a jury trial violated because the judge, rather than the jury, made the finding as to the existence of aggravating and mitigating factors? b.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(6) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(9) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(G)(l) — 6 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(GX1) — 1 case
State v. Gretzler (1983)
ariz
“Gretzler's condition thus does not make him an improper subject for either the retributive or deterrence justifications of punishment. Acceptable goals of punishment are served by submitting Gretzler's case to capital sentencing consideration.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(GX3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(GX5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H) — 13 cases
State v. McKinney (1996)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703. The state must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(1)(a) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(1)(b) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(1)(h) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(10) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(2) — 4 cases
State v. McKinney (1996)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703. The state must prove aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(4) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(5) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(8) — 1 case
State v. Roque (2006)
ariz
“A.R.S. § 13-703(0, (D). “[T]he prosecution or the defendant may present any information that is relevant to any of the mitigating circumstances .”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(9) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(l)(a) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(H)(l)(d) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(I) — 24 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(I)(1) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(I)(2)(f) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(J) — 79 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(K) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(L) — 11 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(M) — 8 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(N) — 11 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(P) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(c) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-703(g) — 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.