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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-711 (2026)

Multiple sentences of imprisonment; concurrent and consecutive determinations

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

A. Except as otherwise provided by law, if multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person at the same time, the sentences imposed by the court may run consecutively or concurrently, as determined by the court. The court shall state on the record the reason for its determination.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A of this section, if a person is subject to an undischarged term of imprisonment and is sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment for a felony offense that is committed while the person is under the jurisdiction of the state department of corrections, the sentence imposed by the court shall run consecutively to the undischarged term of imprisonment.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1970–2026 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Manuel David Perez-Gutierrez, 548 P.3d 1102 (Ariz. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Manuel David Perez-Gutierrez, 548 P.3d 1102 (Ariz. 2024). · cites it 51× “The court of appeals held that if a judge fails to substantially comply with these requirements, the case must be remanded for the trial court to satisfy § 13-711 by providing its sentencing reasons.”
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson, 307 P.3d 19 (Ariz. 2013). · cites it 5× “Specifically, he argues that the court should have admitted evidence that (1) no mechanism exists for an inmate sentenced to life to apply for parole, (2) Benson’s release would be unlikely in light of the number of inmates actually paroled after serving twenty-five years of a…”
State v. Cota, 272 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. 2012). · cites it 4× “Section 13-708 was renumbered as § 13-711 in 2009. See 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden, 373 P.3d 543 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 2× “In accordance with AR.S. § 13-711(A), the trial judge explained his reasoning: [A]ll the more when I watch the video in this ease, it’s all one incident and it starts and it just continues.”
State v. Bowsher, 242 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 2× “”); A.R.S. § 13-711(A) (2010) (providing that "if multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person at the same time, the sentence or sentences imposed by the court shall run consecutively unless the court expressly directs otherwise").”
In Re the Appeal in Marcopa Cnty., Juv. Action No. J-75755, 523 P.2d 1304 (Ariz. 1974). · cites it 2× “Thus it is apparent from the foregoing that the elements of the two offenses are different and that one is not a lesser included offense of the other.”
State v. Perez-Gutierrez, 530 P.3d 395 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 56× “Instead of remanding for resentencing, we should follow the same path we do in almost all criminal cases where error occurs 1 We note that A.R.S. § 13-711 was last amended in 2019, while Rule 26.”
State v. Miller, 501 P.2d 383 (Ariz. 1972). “” And the lesser included offense of petty theft is defined as follows: “A.”
State v. Perez-Gutierrez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 14× “¶9 Perez-Gutierrez appealed, arguing the superior court violated A.R.S. § 13-711(A) because it did not state its reason for imposing consecutive sentences on the record.”
State v. Hatten, 474 P.2d 830 (Ariz. 1970). · cites it 3× “The defendant’s next contention is that it was error for the trial judge to refuse to instruct the jury on forcible trespass as defined by A.R.S. § 13-711. 2 We cannot agree. In previous cases this Court has held that: “ * * * instructions on lesser offenses are justified only…”
State v. Barfield (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 10× “Presentence Incarceration Credit ¶25 Barfield contends that the superior court erred when it determined that, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-711(B), he could not receive presentence incarceration credit for time he was incarcerated on his undischarged term of imprisonment in a prior…”
In Re the Appeal in Maricopa Cnty., Juv. Action No. J-75755, 521 P.2d 641 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, in Hatten, the trial court refused to instruct the jury on forcible trespass (A.R.S. § 13-711) as a lesser-included offense to a charge of burglary, and the Supreme Court agreed stating: "In previous cases this Court has held that: `* * * instructions on lesser…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-711(A) — 21 cases
State of Arizona v. Manuel David Perez-Gutierrez, 548 P.3d 1102 (Ariz. 2024). “The court of appeals held that if a judge fails to substantially comply with these requirements, the case must be remanded for the trial court to satisfy § 13-711 by providing its sentencing reasons.”
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson, 307 P.3d 19 (Ariz. 2013). “Specifically, he argues that the court should have admitted evidence that (1) no mechanism exists for an inmate sentenced to life to apply for parole, (2) Benson’s release would be unlikely in light of the number of inmates actually paroled after serving twenty-five years of a…”
State of Arizona v. Samkeita Jahveh Jurden, 373 P.3d 543 (Ariz. 2016). “In accordance with AR.S. § 13-711(A), the trial judge explained his reasoning: [A]ll the more when I watch the video in this ease, it’s all one incident and it starts and it just continues.”
State v. Cota, 272 P.3d 1027 (Ariz. 2012). “Section 13-708 was renumbered as § 13-711 in 2009. See 2008 Ariz. Sess. Laws, ch.”
State v. Bowsher, 242 P.3d 1055 (Ariz. 2010). “”); A.R.S. § 13-711(A) (2010) (providing that "if multiple sentences of imprisonment are imposed on a person at the same time, the sentence or sentences imposed by the court shall run consecutively unless the court expressly directs otherwise").”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-711(B) — 6 cases
State v. Barfield (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “Presentence Incarceration Credit ¶25 Barfield contends that the superior court erred when it determined that, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-711(B), he could not receive presentence incarceration credit for time he was incarcerated on his undischarged term of imprisonment in a prior…”
State v. Jimenez (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
State v. Estell (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
State v. Beard (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
State v. Meraz (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
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.