13-718. Sentence of life imprisonment; parole eligibility; applicability
A. Notwithstanding any other law, a person who was convicted of first degree murder and who was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after serving a minimum number of calendar years pursuant to a plea agreement that contained a stipulation to parole eligibility is eligible for parole after serving the minimum number of calendar years that is specified in the sentence. If granted parole, the person shall remain on parole for the remainder of the person's life except that the person's parole may be revoked pursuant to section 31-415.
B. This section applies to a defendant who entered into a plea agreement that stipulated to parole eligibility and who was sentenced at any time from and after January 1, 1994 and on or before August 3, 2018.
Notes of Decisions
State of Arizona v. Larry Dean Anderson, 547 P.3d 345 (Ariz. 2024).
· cites it 8× “¶19 The State and amicus Maricopa County Attorney’s Office (“MCAO”) misplace their reliance on A.R.S. § 13-718 in addressing the timeliness issue.”
State v. Struebing (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 8× “As to these claims, the State argued that any illegality or prejudice was cured by the legislature’s enactment of § 13-718 and amendment of related statutes.”
Chaparro v. Ryan (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 5× “) 17 In 2018, the Arizona Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 18 1211, which is now codified at A.R.S. § 13-718. (Id. ¶ 26.) The statute provides that “a 19 person who was convicted of first degree murder and who was sentenced [between January 20 1, 1994…”
Lewis v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 4× “Arizona then 16 enacted A.R.S. § 13-718, which provides that any person sentenced to life with the 17 possibility of parole pursuant to a plea agreement between January 1, 1994, and August 3, 18 2018, is eligible for parole in accordance with their sentence.”
Hylton v. Shinn (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 3× “The Department determined that he was ineligible for parole under A.R.S. § 13-718 because he was convicted by a jury but that he could apply for commutation after the completion of 25 years’ imprisonment in July 2022.”
Chaparro v. Ryan (D. Ariz. 2019).
· cites it 2× “) 4 In 2018, the Arizona Legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 5 1211, which is now codified at A.R.S. § 13-718. (Id. ¶ 26.) The statute provides that “a 6 person who was convicted of first degree murder and who was sentenced [between January 7 1, 1994 and…”
Viramontes 146961 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2021).
· cites it 2× “See Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-718 . No form of relief 15 exists for defendants who received the same sentence following conviction at trial.”
Ware 223315 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2023).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-718(A). The new law also specifies that if such a defendant is 15 granted parole, the defendant “shall remain on parole for the remainder of [his] life.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-718(A) — 1 case
Ware 223315 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2023).
“” A.R.S. § 13-718(A). The new law also specifies that if such a defendant is 15 granted parole, the defendant “shall remain on parole for the remainder of [his] life.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-718(B) — 1 case
State v. Struebing (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“As to these claims, the State argued that any illegality or prejudice was cured by the legislature’s enactment of § 13-718 and amendment of related statutes.”
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.