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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-812 (2026)

Garnishment for nonpayment of fines, surcharges, fees, assessments, restitution or incarceration costs

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

A. After a hearing on an order to show cause pursuant to section 13-810, subsection A or B or after a hearing on a petition to revoke probation, the court may issue a writ of criminal garnishment for any fine, surcharge, fee, assessment, restitution or incarceration costs.

B. The court may order garnishment for monies that are owed to a victim or the court, the clerk of the court or the prosecuting attorney pursuant to a court order to pay any fine, surcharge, fee, assessment, restitution or incarceration costs. A writ of criminal garnishment applies to any of the following:

1. The defendant's earnings as defined in section 12-1598.

2. Indebtedness that is owed to a defendant by a garnishee for amounts that are not earnings.

3. Monies that are held by a garnishee on behalf of a defendant.

4. The defendant's personal property that is in the possession of a garnishee.

5. If the garnishee is a corporation, shares or securities of a corporation or a proprietary interest in a corporation that belongs to a defendant.

6. The defendant's earnings or monies that are held by the state department of corrections while the defendant is in the custody of the department.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: State v. Ramos, 747 P.2d 629 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blades v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin. (D. Ariz. 2024). “26 § 13-812. It does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction.”
State v. Dustin, 449 P.3d 715 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 3× “DUSTIN Opinion of the Court A.R.S. § 13-812 (1986), repealed by 1993 Ariz.”
State v. McDonagh, 304 P.3d 212 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “In addition to any other fine or assessment, each person convicted of a felony shall be assessed a penalty of: 1.”
State v. Unkefer, 239 P.3d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “§ 13-810(B) (2010) (order to show cause why defendant should not be *437 held in contempt for failing to pay restitution); and A.R.S. § 13-812 (2010) (entry of writ of criminal garnishment following order to show cause hearing).”
State v. Payne, 225 P.3d 1131 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “¶33 In Sheaves , this court ruled that a “felony penalty assessment” imposed under A.R.S. § 13-812 “constitutes a ‘fine’ for sentencing purposes” and, consequently, the statutory prohibition in A.”
State of Arizona v. Payne Nelson Daniels (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “¶33 In Sheaves, this court ruled that a “felony penalty assessment” imposed under A.R.S. § 13-812 “constitutes a ‘fine’ for sentencing purposes” and, consequently, the statutory prohibition in A.”
State v. Pennington, 873 P.2d 639 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 4× “In each case, the court imposed a $2,000 fine and the $100 felony assessment fee mandated by A.R.S. § 13-812. Because defendant was sentenced to prison, the court ordered the fines and fees to be paid in monthly installments after defendant’s release.”
State v. Alexander, 858 P.2d 680 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “Arizona Revised Statutes Annotated section 13-116 provides that “[a]n act or omission which is made punishable in different ways by different sections of the laws may be punished under both, but in no event may sentences be other than concurrent.”
State v. Perez, 836 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 9× “Defendant asserts since final judgment has not been entered in this case, he has not been “convicted” of a felony, and therefore A.R.S. § 13-812 cannot be applied. Section 13-812(A) reads: In addition to any other fine or assessment, each person convicted of a felony shall be…”
State v. Arana, 843 P.2d 652 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 8× “We are asked to decide whether the felony assessment penalty under A.R.S. § 13-812 is applicable to defendants convicted of class 6 felonies and placed on probation with delayed designation under A.”
State v. Rivera, 836 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 6× “§ 12-116 reflects a legislative intent to impose the time payment fee for each monetary assessment that is not paid in full on the date it is imposed by the trial court.”
State v. Anderson, 827 P.2d 1129 (Ariz. 1992). · cites it 4× “Furthermore, the court told the defendant that it was "required by law [A.R.S. § 13-812] to impose [the] mandatory assessment of $100.”
Show all 26 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-812(A) — 3 cases
State v. Perez, 836 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Defendant asserts since final judgment has not been entered in this case, he has not been “convicted” of a felony, and therefore A.R.S. § 13-812 cannot be applied. Section 13-812(A) reads: In addition to any other fine or assessment, each person convicted of a felony shall be…”
State v. Rivera, 836 P.2d 460 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “§ 12-116 reflects a legislative intent to impose the time payment fee for each monetary assessment that is not paid in full on the date it is imposed by the trial court.”
State v. Pennington, 873 P.2d 639 (Ariz. 1994). “In each case, the court imposed a $2,000 fine and the $100 felony assessment fee mandated by A.R.S. § 13-812. Because defendant was sentenced to prison, the court ordered the fines and fees to be paid in monthly installments after defendant’s release.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-812(A)(1) — 3 cases
State v. Perez, 836 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “Defendant asserts since final judgment has not been entered in this case, he has not been “convicted” of a felony, and therefore A.R.S. § 13-812 cannot be applied. Section 13-812(A) reads: In addition to any other fine or assessment, each person convicted of a felony shall be…”
State v. Arana, 843 P.2d 652 (Ariz. 1992). “We are asked to decide whether the felony assessment penalty under A.R.S. § 13-812 is applicable to defendants convicted of class 6 felonies and placed on probation with delayed designation under A.”
State v. Vargas-Burgos, 783 P.2d 264 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-812(B) — 1 case
State v. Sheaves, 747 P.2d 1237 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987).
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.