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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01 (2026)

Probation for persons convicted of possession or use of controlled substances or drug paraphernalia; treatment; prevention; education; exceptions; definition

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

 

(Caution:  1998 Prop. 105 applies)

 

A. Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation. The court shall suspend the imposition or execution of sentence and place the person on probation.

B. Any person who has been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime as defined in section 13-901.03 is not eligible for probation as provided for in this section but instead shall be sentenced pursuant to chapter 34 of this title.

C. Personal possession or use of a controlled substance pursuant to this section shall not include possession for sale, production, manufacturing or transportation for sale of any controlled substance.

D. If a person is convicted of personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, as a condition of probation, the court shall require participation in an appropriate drug treatment or education program administered by a qualified agency or organization that provides such programs to persons who abuse controlled substances. Each person who is enrolled in a drug treatment or education program shall be required to pay for participation in the program to the extent of the person's financial ability.

E. A person who has been placed on probation pursuant to this section and who is determined by the court to be in violation of probation shall have new conditions of probation established by the court. The court shall select the additional conditions it deems necessary, including intensified drug treatment, community restitution, intensive probation, home arrest or any other sanctions except that the court shall not impose a term of incarceration unless the court determines that the person violated probation by committing an offense listed in chapter 34 or 34.1 of this title or an act in violation of an order of the court relating to drug treatment.

F. If a person is convicted a second time of personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, the court may include additional conditions of probation it deems necessary, including intensified drug treatment, community restitution, intensive probation, home arrest or any other action within the jurisdiction of the court.

G. At any time while the defendant is on probation, if after having a reasonable opportunity to do so the defendant fails or refuses to participate in drug treatment, the probation department or the prosecutor may petition the court to revoke the defendant's probation.  If the court finds that the defendant refused to participate in drug treatment, the defendant shall no longer be eligible for probation under this section but instead shall be sentenced pursuant to chapter 34 of this title.

H. A person is not eligible for probation under this section but instead shall be sentenced pursuant to chapter 34 of this title if the court finds the person either:

1. Had been convicted three times of personal possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia.

2. Refused drug treatment as a term of probation.

3. Rejected probation.

4. Was convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia and the offense involved methamphetamine.

I. Subsections G and H of this section do not prohibit the defendant from being placed on probation pursuant to section 13-901 if the defendant otherwise qualifies for probation under that section.

J. For the purposes of this section, "controlled substance" has the same meaning prescribed in section 36-2501.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 101 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: State v. Gomez, 127 P.3d 873 (Ariz. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Gomez, 127 P.3d 873 (Ariz. 2006). · cites it 116× “For first-time offenders, Proposition 200 provides: Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation.”
State v. Hensley, 31 P.3d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 174× “Regardless, the State urges us to similarly conclude that A.R.S. § 13-901.01 did not require it to allege prior to Hensley's convictions that he had been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime in order to disqualify him for sentencing under Proposition 200.”
State v. Christian, 47 P.3d 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 68× “The sentence for a class three felony with two historical felonies would have been 11.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin, 49 P.3d 1142 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 22× “Subsequently, the state filed allegations against Steadman and Landeros (collectively “defendants”) for prior felony convictions, which were sentenced under A.R.S. § 13-901.01. Defendants moved to preclude the state from using the prior felony convictions for impeachment…”
State v. Vaughn, 176 P.3d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 35× “¶ 2 Tilfert Darrell Vaughn was on mandatory probation in CR2005-125518-001 DT (the “2005 case”) pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01. He was also on probation in a separate matter, CR2000-019188-001 DT (the “2000 ease”).”
Raney v. Lindberg, 76 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 50× “No mention was made in either the indictment or plea agreement of § 13-901.01, the statute that mandates probation for first- and second-time convictions for possessory drug offenses.”
State v. Benak, 18 P.3d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 26× “See A.R.S. § 13-901.01 (Historical and Statutory Notes).”
Calik v. Kongable, 990 P.2d 1055 (Ariz. 1999). · cites it 24× “Proposition 200, codified as A.R.S. § 13-901.01, requires courts to suspend sentencing and impose probation for first-time offenders.”
State v. Joyner, 158 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 24× “See A.R.S. § 13-901.01. On this record, we agree.”
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green, 459 P.3d 45 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 27× “We hold that convictions for possession of drugs for sale, whether completed or inchoate, are not disqualifying convictions for purposes of determining eligibility for mandatory probation and drug treatment under § 13-901.01. Additionally, we hold that § 13-901.”
Gray v. Irwin, 987 P.2d 759 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 30× “1998), review denied (May 19, 1998), (holding that convictions for possession of drugs for sale may be considered when sentencing pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01); Bolton v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz.”
Goddard v. Superior Court, 956 P.2d 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 23× “Which Version of A.R.S. § 13-901.01 Applies? ¶3 By enacting Proposition 200, § 10, the Arizona electorate adopted one version of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
Show all 101 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(0) — 5 cases
Goddard v. Superior Court, 956 P.2d 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Which Version of A.R.S. § 13-901.01 Applies? ¶3 By enacting Proposition 200, § 10, the Arizona electorate adopted one version of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
Mejia v. Irwin, 987 P.2d 756 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
Foster v. Irwin, 995 P.2d 272 (Ariz. 2000).
State v. Pereyra, 18 P.3d 146 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
State ex rel. Montgomery v. Woodburn, 292 P.3d 201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(1) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy, 265 P.3d 1104 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(A) — 50 cases
State v. Gomez, 127 P.3d 873 (Ariz. 2006). “For first-time offenders, Proposition 200 provides: Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation.”
State v. Hensley, 31 P.3d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Regardless, the State urges us to similarly conclude that A.R.S. § 13-901.01 did not require it to allege prior to Hensley's convictions that he had been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime in order to disqualify him for sentencing under Proposition 200.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin, 69 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. 2003).
Baker v. Superior Court for Maricopa Cty., 947 P.2d 910 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
Raney v. Lindberg, 76 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “No mention was made in either the indictment or plea agreement of § 13-901.01, the statute that mandates probation for first- and second-time convictions for possessory drug offenses.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(A)(1) — 1 case
Goddard v. Superior Court, 956 P.2d 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Which Version of A.R.S. § 13-901.01 Applies? ¶3 By enacting Proposition 200, § 10, the Arizona electorate adopted one version of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(B) — 28 cases
State v. Gomez, 127 P.3d 873 (Ariz. 2006). “For first-time offenders, Proposition 200 provides: Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation.”
State v. Hensley, 31 P.3d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Regardless, the State urges us to similarly conclude that A.R.S. § 13-901.01 did not require it to allege prior to Hensley's convictions that he had been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime in order to disqualify him for sentencing under Proposition 200.”
State v. Benak, 18 P.3d 127 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “See A.R.S. § 13-901.01 (Historical and Statutory Notes).”
State v. Joyner, 158 P.3d 263 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). “See A.R.S. § 13-901.01. On this record, we agree.”
State v. Gomez, 102 P.3d 992 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(B)(2) — 1 case
State v. Bradley, 858 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1993).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(C) — 4 cases
Goddard v. Superior Court, 956 P.2d 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Which Version of A.R.S. § 13-901.01 Applies? ¶3 By enacting Proposition 200, § 10, the Arizona electorate adopted one version of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
State v. Estrada, 34 P.3d 356 (Ariz. 2001).
State v. Green, 431 P.3d 599 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State of Arizona v. Alejandro Chaparro Romero (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(D) — 5 cases
State v. Vaughn, 176 P.3d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 2 Tilfert Darrell Vaughn was on mandatory probation in CR2005-125518-001 DT (the “2005 case”) pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01. He was also on probation in a separate matter, CR2000-019188-001 DT (the “2000 ease”).”
Calik v. Kongable, 990 P.2d 1055 (Ariz. 1999). “Proposition 200, codified as A.R.S. § 13-901.01, requires courts to suspend sentencing and impose probation for first-time offenders.”
Calik v. Superior Court, 979 P.2d 1 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999).
O'BRIEN v. Escher, 65 P.3d 107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
Jeremy Sean O'Brien v. State (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(E) — 24 cases
State v. Hensley, 31 P.3d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Regardless, the State urges us to similarly conclude that A.R.S. § 13-901.01 did not require it to allege prior to Hensley's convictions that he had been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime in order to disqualify him for sentencing under Proposition 200.”
O'BRIEN v. Escher, 65 P.3d 107 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
O'connor v. Hyatt, 87 P.3d 97 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
State v. Tousignant, 43 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
In Re Themika M., 81 P.3d 344 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(E)(2001) — 1 case
State v. Tousignant, 43 P.3d 218 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(F) — 16 cases
Raney v. Lindberg, 76 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “No mention was made in either the indictment or plea agreement of § 13-901.01, the statute that mandates probation for first- and second-time convictions for possessory drug offenses.”
State v. Hensley, 31 P.3d 848 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “Regardless, the State urges us to similarly conclude that A.R.S. § 13-901.01 did not require it to allege prior to Hensley's convictions that he had been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime in order to disqualify him for sentencing under Proposition 200.”
Calik v. Kongable, 990 P.2d 1055 (Ariz. 1999). “Proposition 200, codified as A.R.S. § 13-901.01, requires courts to suspend sentencing and impose probation for first-time offenders.”
Gray v. Irwin, 987 P.2d 759 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “1998), review denied (May 19, 1998), (holding that convictions for possession of drugs for sale may be considered when sentencing pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01); Bolton v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz.”
State v. Gallagher, 69 P.3d 38 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(G) — 14 cases
State v. Vaughn, 176 P.3d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 2 Tilfert Darrell Vaughn was on mandatory probation in CR2005-125518-001 DT (the “2005 case”) pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01. He was also on probation in a separate matter, CR2000-019188-001 DT (the “2000 ease”).”
State v. Guillory, 18 P.3d 1261 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Goddard v. Superior Court, 956 P.2d 529 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “Which Version of A.R.S. § 13-901.01 Applies? ¶3 By enacting Proposition 200, § 10, the Arizona electorate adopted one version of Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.”
State v. Rodriguez, 23 P.3d 100 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001).
Gray v. Irwin, 987 P.2d 759 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1999). “1998), review denied (May 19, 1998), (holding that convictions for possession of drugs for sale may be considered when sentencing pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01); Bolton v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(H) — 6 cases
State v. Vaughn, 176 P.3d 716 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 2 Tilfert Darrell Vaughn was on mandatory probation in CR2005-125518-001 DT (the “2005 case”) pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.01. He was also on probation in a separate matter, CR2000-019188-001 DT (the “2000 ease”).”
Raney v. Lindberg, 76 P.3d 867 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “No mention was made in either the indictment or plea agreement of § 13-901.01, the statute that mandates probation for first- and second-time convictions for possessory drug offenses.”
State Ex Rel. Romley v. Martin, 69 P.3d 1000 (Ariz. 2003).
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green, 459 P.3d 45 (Ariz. 2020). “We hold that convictions for possession of drugs for sale, whether completed or inchoate, are not disqualifying convictions for purposes of determining eligibility for mandatory probation and drug treatment under § 13-901.01. Additionally, we hold that § 13-901.”
State v. Shively, 323 P.3d 1211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(H)(1) — 4 cases
State v. Patterson, 218 P.3d 1031 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
State v. Carter, 165 P.3d 687 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
State v. Green, 431 P.3d 599 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Bradley (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(H)(2) — 2 cases
State v. Hatch, 239 P.3d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State v. Green, 431 P.3d 599 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(H)(3) — 1 case
State v. Boozer, 212 P.3d 939 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.01(H)(4) — 2 cases
State v. Hatch, 239 P.3d 432 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010).
State of Arizona v. Linda Ann Siplivy, 265 P.3d 1104 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
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.