Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707 (2026)

Misdemeanors; sentencing

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

A. A sentence of imprisonment for a misdemeanor shall be for a definite term to be served other than a place within custody of the state department of corrections. The court shall fix the term of imprisonment within the following maximum limitations:

1. For a class 1 misdemeanor, six months.

2. For a class 2 misdemeanor, four months.

3. For a class 3 misdemeanor, thirty days.

B. A person who is at least eighteen years of age or who has been tried as an adult and who stands convicted of any misdemeanor or petty offense, other than a traffic offense, and who has been convicted of one or more of the same misdemeanors or petty offenses within two years next preceding the date of the present offense shall be sentenced for the next higher class of offense than that for which the person currently is convicted. Time spent incarcerated within the two years next preceding the date of the offense for which a person is currently being sentenced shall not be included in the two years required to be free of convictions.

C. If a person is convicted of a misdemeanor offense and the offense requires enhanced punishment because it is a second or subsequent offense, the court shall determine the existence of the previous conviction.  The court shall allow the allegation of a prior conviction to be made in the same manner as the allegation prescribed by section 28-1387, subsection A.

D. A person who has been convicted in any court outside the jurisdiction of this state of an offense that if committed in this state would be punishable as a misdemeanor or petty offense is subject to this section.  A person who has been convicted as an adult of an offense punishable as a misdemeanor or petty offense under the provisions of any prior code in this state is subject to this section.

E. The court may direct that a person who is sentenced pursuant to subsection A of this section shall not be released on any basis until the sentence imposed by the court has been served.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 82 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012).
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-707 (A), -2812; FAC ¶ 97.”
State v. Ceasar, 383 P.3d 1140 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 14× “To apply § 13-707—a statute in the criminal code’s chapter on sentencing and imprisonment, A.”
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707 (A). Class three is the least serious, punishable by a maxi- mum of thirty days’ imprisonment.”
Benitez v. Dunevant, 7 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2000). · cites it 8× “Because the offense, driving on a suspended driver's license, is designated a class one misdemeanor, we refer to the maximum imprisonment for a class one misdemeanor, six months, see A.R.S. § 13-707, and the maximum fine, $2500, see A.”
Jose Roberto Fernandez-Ruiz v. Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney Gen., 468 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 2006). · cites it 2× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707 . To support this claim, he asserts that the Arizona Superior Court issued a minute entry on June 30, 2004, which acknowledged that the sentence imposed on him ten years earlier, in June 1994, was illegal.”
Fushek v. State, 183 P.3d 536 (Ariz. 2008). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. §§ 13-707(A), 13-1203(A)(3) (2001).”
State v. Gulley, 382 P.3d 795 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 20× “A.R.S. § 13-707 ¶ 23 Defendant next contends that, because § 13-707(B) requires sentencing of a person “who stands convicted of any misdemeanor .”
State v. Moreno, 655 P.2d 23 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “The offense pled to was a class 1 misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment (A.R.S. § 13-707(1)), and a fine of $1,000 (A.”
State Ex Rel. Dean v. Dolny, 778 P.2d 1193 (Ariz. 1989). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. §§ 13-707(A)(1), -802(A). In reaching its decision, the Court observed that the most relevant criterion for determining the seriousness of an offense is the severity of the maximum penalty fixed by the statute.”
Ottaway v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “§ 13-2810(B), and that the maximum sentence of incarceration for such an offense is six months, see A.R.S. § 13-707(A)(1) (2001), the only case in which a defendant has a greater opportunity to a jury trial pursuant to Rule 33 than pursuant to § 13-2810 is when the potential…”
State v. Malloy, 639 P.2d 315 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 13-707(1). Hence, it is clear that the appellant’s prior conviction does not come within Rule 609(a)(1) and is admissible, if at all, only under Rule 609(a)(2).”
State v. Harris, 655 P.2d 1339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “” The convictions for burglary and theft are affirmed, the sentence for burglary is affirmed, the sentence for the theft is vacated and set aside and the case is remanded for resentencing on the theft charge in compliance with A.R.S. § 13-707. HATHAWAY and BEN C. BIRDSALL, JJ.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(0) — 2 cases
State v. Ceasar, 383 P.3d 1140 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “To apply § 13-707—a statute in the criminal code’s chapter on sentencing and imprisonment, A.”
Blawis v. Bolin, 358 F. Supp. 349 (D. Ariz. 1973).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(1) — 4 cases
State v. Moreno, 655 P.2d 23 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). “The offense pled to was a class 1 misdemeanor, with a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment (A.R.S. § 13-707(1)), and a fine of $1,000 (A.”
State v. Malloy, 639 P.2d 315 (Ariz. 1981). “A.R.S. § 13-707(1). Hence, it is clear that the appellant’s prior conviction does not come within Rule 609(a)(1) and is admissible, if at all, only under Rule 609(a)(2).”
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC., 618 P.2d 1078 (Ariz. 1980).
Rife v. Godbehere, 814 F.2d 563 (1987).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(3) — 1 case
Carefree Improvement Ass'n v. City of Scottsdale, 649 P.2d 985 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(33) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Donald William Gulley, 393 P.3d 929 (Ariz. 2017).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(A) — 14 cases
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). “Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 13-707 (A), -2812; FAC ¶ 97.”
Fushek v. State, 183 P.3d 536 (Ariz. 2008). “A.R.S. §§ 13-707(A), 13-1203(A)(3) (2001).”
Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 466 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2006). “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707 (A). Class three is the least serious, punishable by a maxi- mum of thirty days’ imprisonment.”
Benitez v. Dunevant, 979 P.2d 1017 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
State v. Ceasar, 383 P.3d 1140 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “To apply § 13-707—a statute in the criminal code’s chapter on sentencing and imprisonment, A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(A)(1) — 26 cases
State Ex Rel. Dean v. Dolny, 778 P.2d 1193 (Ariz. 1989). “See A.R.S. §§ 13-707(A)(1), -802(A). In reaching its decision, the Court observed that the most relevant criterion for determining the seriousness of an offense is the severity of the maximum penalty fixed by the statute.”
Ottaway v. Smith, 113 P.3d 1247 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005). “§ 13-2810(B), and that the maximum sentence of incarceration for such an offense is six months, see A.R.S. § 13-707(A)(1) (2001), the only case in which a defendant has a greater opportunity to a jury trial pursuant to Rule 33 than pursuant to § 13-2810 is when the potential…”
Benitez v. Dunevant, 7 P.3d 99 (Ariz. 2000). “Because the offense, driving on a suspended driver's license, is designated a class one misdemeanor, we refer to the maximum imprisonment for a class one misdemeanor, six months, see A.R.S. § 13-707, and the maximum fine, $2500, see A.”
State Ex Rel. Brannan v. Williams, 171 P.3d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
Abuhl v. Howell, 135 P.3d 68 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(A)(2) — 6 cases
State v. Harrison, 792 P.2d 779 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
In Re Manny, 120 P.3d 1111 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
State v. Castillo (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Tejeda (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
In Re Gina Manny (Ariz. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(A)(3) — 1 case
State v. McCuin, 808 P.2d 332 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(B) — 3 cases
State v. Ceasar, 383 P.3d 1140 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “To apply § 13-707—a statute in the criminal code’s chapter on sentencing and imprisonment, A.”
State v. Gulley, 382 P.3d 795 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “A.R.S. § 13-707 ¶ 23 Defendant next contends that, because § 13-707(B) requires sentencing of a person “who stands convicted of any misdemeanor .”
State of Arizona v. Donald William Gulley, 393 P.3d 929 (Ariz. 2017).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(C) — 2 cases
State v. Gulley, 382 P.3d 795 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “A.R.S. § 13-707 ¶ 23 Defendant next contends that, because § 13-707(B) requires sentencing of a person “who stands convicted of any misdemeanor .”
Blawis v. Bolin, 358 F. Supp. 349 (D. Ariz. 1973).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-707(F) — 1 case
State v. Dorsey (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
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.