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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-755 (2026)

Death sentences; supreme court review

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

A. The supreme court shall review all death sentences. On review, the supreme court shall independently review the trial court's findings of aggravation and mitigation and the propriety of the death sentence.

B. If the supreme court determines that an error was made regarding a finding of aggravation or mitigation, the supreme court shall independently determine if the mitigation the supreme court finds is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency in light of the existing aggravation. If the supreme court finds that the mitigation is not sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency, the supreme court shall affirm the death sentence. If the supreme court finds that the mitigation is sufficiently substantial to warrant leniency, the supreme court shall impose a life sentence pursuant to section 13-751, subsection A.

C. The independent review required by subsection A does not preclude the supreme court from remanding a case for further action if the trial court erroneously excluded evidence or if the appellate record does not adequately reflect the evidence presented.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: State v. Styers, 254 P.3d 1132 (Ariz. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Styers, 254 P.3d 1132 (Ariz. 2011). · cites it 22× “See A.R.S. § 13-755. ¶ 9 Our earlier opinion affirmed as aggravating factors that the four-year-old victim was younger than fifteen years of age, A.”
James McKinney v. Charles Ryan, 813 F.3d 798 (9th Cir. 2015). · cites it 7× “The Arizona Supreme Court reviews capital sentences de novo, making its own determination of what constitute legally relevant aggravating and mitigating factors, and then independently weighing those factors.”
State v. Speer, 212 P.3d 787 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 10× “This Court has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3) of the A’izona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 13-755, 13-4031, and 13-4033 (2001 & Supp.”
State v. Moore, 213 P.3d 150 (Ariz. 2009). · cites it 6× “” A.R.S. § 13-755 (Supp.2009); see 2002 Ariz.”
State v. Lynch, 234 P.3d 595 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 10× “”) §§ 13-755,13-4031, and 13-4033 (2010). 1 I.”
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo, 390 P.3d 783 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 13-755(A). 1. Aggravating Circumstances ¶ 63 The jury found four aggra-vators—(F)(1) (conviction of another offense for which life or death sentence imposable), (F)(2) (prior conviction of a serious offense), (F)(5) (pecuniary gain), and (F)(8) (multiple murders…”
State of Arizona v. Mark Goudeau, 372 P.3d 945 (Ariz. 2016). · cites it 2× “We have jurisdiction under article 6, section 5(3) of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. §§ 13-755, - 4031, and -4033(A)(1).”
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco, 386 P.3d 798 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “AR.S. § 13-755(A); Grell III, 231 Ariz. at 154 ¶ 3, 291 P.”
State v. Hargrave, 234 P.3d 569 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 4× “AR.S. § 13-755(A) (2010). In conducting independent review, “we consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.”
State of Arizona v. Darrel Peter Pandeli, 394 P.3d 2 (Ariz. 2017). · cites it 2× “The PCR court subsequently granted relief on all those claims as well as an additional due process violation, setting aside Pandeli’s death sentence, and ordering a new aggravation and penalty phase sentencing trial.”
State v. Garcia, 226 P.3d 370 (Ariz. 2010). · cites it 4× “3 A.R.S. § 13-755(A) (Supp.2009); see also 2002 Ariz.”
State of Arizona v. Homer Ray Roseberry, 353 P.3d 847 (Ariz. 2015). · cites it 4× “3d at 415-16 ; see also A.R.S. § 13-755 (requiring independent review of death sentences).”
Show all 40 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-755(A) — 27 cases
State v. Speer, 212 P.3d 787 (Ariz. 2009). “This Court has jurisdiction under Article 6, Section 5(3) of the A’izona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 13-755, 13-4031, and 13-4033 (2001 & Supp.”
State v. Styers, 254 P.3d 1132 (Ariz. 2011). “See A.R.S. § 13-755. ¶ 9 Our earlier opinion affirmed as aggravating factors that the four-year-old victim was younger than fifteen years of age, A.”
State of Arizona v. Joel Randu Escalante-Orozco, 386 P.3d 798 (Ariz. 2017). “AR.S. § 13-755(A); Grell III, 231 Ariz. at 154 ¶ 3, 291 P.”
State v. Garcia, 226 P.3d 370 (Ariz. 2010). “3 A.R.S. § 13-755(A) (Supp.2009); see also 2002 Ariz.”
State v. Lynch, 234 P.3d 595 (Ariz. 2010). “”) §§ 13-755,13-4031, and 13-4033 (2010). 1 I.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-755(B) — 8 cases
State v. Lynch, 234 P.3d 595 (Ariz. 2010). “”) §§ 13-755,13-4031, and 13-4033 (2010). 1 I.”
State of Arizona v. Abel Daniel Hidalgo, 390 P.3d 783 (Ariz. 2017). “See A.R.S. § 13-755(A). 1. Aggravating Circumstances ¶ 63 The jury found four aggra-vators—(F)(1) (conviction of another offense for which life or death sentence imposable), (F)(2) (prior conviction of a serious offense), (F)(5) (pecuniary gain), and (F)(8) (multiple murders…”
State v. Moore, 213 P.3d 150 (Ariz. 2009). “” A.R.S. § 13-755 (Supp.2009); see 2002 Ariz.”
State v. Hargrave, 234 P.3d 569 (Ariz. 2010). “AR.S. § 13-755(A) (2010). In conducting independent review, “we consider the quality and the strength, not simply the number, of aggravating and mitigating factors.”
State of Arizona v. Efren Medina, 306 P.3d 48 (Ariz. 2013).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-755(C) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Charles Michael Hedlund, 431 P.3d 181 (Ariz. 2018).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-755(M) — 1 case
Warner v. Ryan (D. Ariz. 2019).
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.