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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.03 (2026)

Violent crimes; allegation; definition

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

13-901.03. Violent crimes; allegation; definition

A. The allegation that the defendant committed a violent crime shall be charged in the indictment or information and admitted or found by the court. The court shall allow the allegation that the defendant committed a violent crime at any time before the date the case is actually tried unless the allegation is filed fewer than twenty days before the case is actually tried and the court finds on the record that the defendant was in fact prejudiced by the untimely filing and states the reasons for these findings.

B. For the purpose of this section, "violent crime" includes any criminal act that results in death or physical injury or any criminal use of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 2010–2020 · leading case: State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez, 282 P.3d 424 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez, 282 P.3d 424 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “01, “any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation” unless that person “has been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime as defined in § 13-901.03.” Section 13-901.03(B) defines a…”
State of Arizona v. David Lee Green, 459 P.3d 45 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “Offenders with a prior conviction for a violent offense as defined at § 13-901.03 are also not eligible for mandatory probation.”
McGuire v. Lee ex rel. Cnty. of Pima, 372 P.3d 328 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “McGuire relies on A.R.S. § 13-901.03 and this court’s decision in State v.”
State v. Francis, 231 P.3d 373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-901.03 (violent crimes); Guytan, 192 Ariz.”
Emily Ann Mcguire v. State of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “McGuire relies on A.R.S. § 13-901.03 and this court’s decision in State v.”
State v. Medrano (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 5× “01(B) (“Any person who has been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime as defined in § 13-901.03 is not eligible for probation .”
State v. Horton (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “§ 13-701, and an allegation of a violent crime pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-901.03. 1 We cite the current version of all applicable statutes because no revisions material to this decision have occurred since the date of the offenses.”
State v. Irvin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 13-901.03(B). A defendant is entitled to know prior to trial that his prior conviction for a violent crime renders him probation-ineligible.”
State of Arizona v. Christopher Wayne Francis (Ariz. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 13-901.03 (violent crimes); Guytan, 192 Ariz.”
State v. Oman (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “Uses a firearm during the commission of a serious offense as defined in § 13-706 or violent crime as defined in § 13-901.03. C. This section does not require the defensive display of a firearm before the use of physical force or the threat of physical force by a person who is…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-901.03(B) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Joel Agustin Lopez, 282 P.3d 424 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “01, “any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation” unless that person “has been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime as defined in § 13-901.03.” Section 13-901.03(B) defines a…”
State v. Medrano (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015). “01(B) (“Any person who has been convicted of or indicted for a violent crime as defined in § 13-901.03 is not eligible for probation .”
State v. Irvin (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018). “” A.R.S. § 13-901.03(B). A defendant is entitled to know prior to trial that his prior conviction for a violent crime renders him probation-ineligible.”
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.