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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907 (2026)

Automatic restoration of civil rights for first offenders; firearm rights

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

A. On completion of probation for an offense committed in this state or absolute discharge from imprisonment, any person who has not previously been convicted of a felony offense shall automatically be restored any civil rights that were lost or suspended as a result of the conviction if the person pays all victim restitution imposed.  A person who is entitled to the restoration of any civil rights pursuant to this subsection is not required to file an application pursuant to section 13-908, except that if the person does file an application, the court shall grant the application without receiving a response from the state or holding a hearing.

B. On completion of probation for an offense committed outside the jurisdiction of this state or absolute discharge from a prison in another state or the federal bureau of prisons, a person who has not previously been convicted of a felony offense is eligible for automatic restoration of any civil rights that were lost or suspended as a result of the conviction if the person pays all victim restitution imposed.  A person who is entitled to the restoration of any civil rights pursuant to this subsection shall file an application pursuant to section 13-908, and the court shall grant the application without receiving a response from the state or holding a hearing.

C. This section does not apply to a person's right to possess a firearm as defined in section 13-3101 if the person was convicted of any of the following:

1. A dangerous offense under section 13-704 or an offense committed outside the jurisdiction of this state that would be a dangerous offense under section 13-704 if committed in this state.

2. A serious offense as defined in section 13-706 or an offense committed outside the jurisdiction of this state that would be a serious offense as defined in section 13-706 if committed in this state.

D. If the person is not entitled to the automatic restoration of firearm rights pursuant to this section, the court may order the restoration of the right to possess a firearm pursuant to section 13-910.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Parsons v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 395 P.3d 709 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Parsons v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 395 P.3d 709 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 24× “Parsons argued that because his conviction had been set aside pursuant to AR.S. § 13-907, DHS and the superior court erred by using it as a ground for revocation.”
State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall, 322 P.3d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 16× “In 2012, he petitioned the court to set aside his conviction under A.R.S. § 13-907 and to restore his civil rights, including his right to bear firearms under A.”
State v. Zaputil, 207 P.3d 678 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 17× “¶ 5 After the restitution hearing was reset in 2007, Zaputil moved to have it vacated on the grounds that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to order restitution because his probation had been completed and his conviction had been set aside pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-907.…”
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland, 310 P.3d 46 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 24× “On May 1, Copeland applied for an order setting aside her judgment of conviction and “restoring her civil rights, with the exception of the right to bear arms,” pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-907 and 13-908. Recognizing that § 13 — 907(D)(1) provides the section “does not apply” to a…”
Russell v. Royal MacCabees Life Ins., 974 P.2d 443 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 21× “183-042 (1983) (“The language of A.R.S. § 13-907 itself shows that expungement does not destroy the fact of conviction.”
State v. Barr, 175 P.3d 694 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 20× “¶ 13 Barr also argues that the trial court erred in using his 1993 conviction as an aggravating factor because the judgment of guilt was set aside in 1996 pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-907. When Barr was re-sentenced in the present case, this statute provided, in *449 pertinent part,…”
Matter of Rivkind, 791 P.2d 1037 (Ariz. 1990). · cites it 8× “The fact that the conviction was vacated pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-907 does not affect the conclusiveness of guilt because the order to vacate is unrelated to the merits of the conviction.”
United States v. Felix, 561 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2009). · cites it 3× “Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-907 (emphasis added).”
State v. Tyler, 718 P.2d 214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 4× “Defendant now claims that, as the judgment had been vacated and probation was terminated early, this implied a finding of rehabilitation, and these prior convictions could not be used against him.”
State v. Sanchez, 97 P.3d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “The court denied Sanchez’s motion but stated that it did not know whether the legislature had intended to permit courts to grant relief under § 13-921(B) to any defendants who satisfy the criteria of subsection (A) or only to those defendants whom the courts expressly placed on…”
Poblete Mendoza v. Holder, 606 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2010). · cites it 2× “” See Ariz. Rev.Stat. § 13-907. As grounds for his motion, Poblete Mendoza stated that “[d]efendant successfully completed his probation and was discharged therefrom .”
Matter of Couser, 596 P.2d 26 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 4× “We agree with the local administrative committee that the expungement of respondent’s convictions, pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-907, is not a defense to disciplinary proceedings.”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(0) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall, 322 P.3d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “In 2012, he petitioned the court to set aside his conviction under A.R.S. § 13-907 and to restore his civil rights, including his right to bear firearms under A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(A) — 15 cases
Matter of Rivkind, 791 P.2d 1037 (Ariz. 1990). “The fact that the conviction was vacated pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-907 does not affect the conclusiveness of guilt because the order to vacate is unrelated to the merits of the conviction.”
Parsons v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 395 P.3d 709 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Parsons argued that because his conviction had been set aside pursuant to AR.S. § 13-907, DHS and the superior court erred by using it as a ground for revocation.”
United States v. Felix, 561 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2009). “Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-907 (emphasis added).”
State v. Sanchez, 97 P.3d 891 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004). “The court denied Sanchez’s motion but stated that it did not know whether the legislature had intended to permit courts to grant relief under § 13-921(B) to any defendants who satisfy the criteria of subsection (A) or only to those defendants whom the courts expressly placed on…”
Russell v. Royal MacCabees Life Ins., 974 P.2d 443 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998). “183-042 (1983) (“The language of A.R.S. § 13-907 itself shows that expungement does not destroy the fact of conviction.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(B) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Marcos Isaac Danner (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(B)(2) — 1 case
State v. Harris (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(B)(3) — 1 case
State v. Cortes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(C) — 9 cases
Parsons v. Arizona Dep't of Health Servs., 395 P.3d 709 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017). “Parsons argued that because his conviction had been set aside pursuant to AR.S. § 13-907, DHS and the superior court erred by using it as a ground for revocation.”
State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall, 322 P.3d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “In 2012, he petitioned the court to set aside his conviction under A.R.S. § 13-907 and to restore his civil rights, including his right to bear firearms under A.”
State v. Zaputil, 207 P.3d 678 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “¶ 5 After the restitution hearing was reset in 2007, Zaputil moved to have it vacated on the grounds that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction to order restitution because his probation had been completed and his conviction had been set aside pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-907.…”
State v. Harris (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
State v. Tovar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(C)(1) — 4 cases
Ramirez-Altamirano v. Holder, 563 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2009).
State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall, 322 P.3d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “In 2012, he petitioned the court to set aside his conviction under A.R.S. § 13-907 and to restore his civil rights, including his right to bear firearms under A.”
Ramirez-Altamirano v. Mukasey, 554 F.3d 786 (9th Cir. 2009).
State v. Ariaga (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(C)(2) — 1 case
State v. Ariaga (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(D) — 3 cases
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland, 310 P.3d 46 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “On May 1, Copeland applied for an order setting aside her judgment of conviction and “restoring her civil rights, with the exception of the right to bear arms,” pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-907 and 13-908. Recognizing that § 13 — 907(D)(1) provides the section “does not apply” to a…”
State of Arizona v. Raymond Anthony Hall, 322 P.3d 191 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014). “In 2012, he petitioned the court to set aside his conviction under A.R.S. § 13-907 and to restore his civil rights, including his right to bear firearms under A.”
State v. Kot (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(D)(1) — 1 case
State of Arizona v. Debbie Lynn Copeland, 310 P.3d 46 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013). “On May 1, Copeland applied for an order setting aside her judgment of conviction and “restoring her civil rights, with the exception of the right to bear arms,” pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 13-907 and 13-908. Recognizing that § 13 — 907(D)(1) provides the section “does not apply” to a…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(D)(2) — 1 case
State v. Cortes (Ariz. Ct. App. 2015).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(E) — 3 cases
State v. Furlong, 473 P.3d 707 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Kot (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
State v. Tovar (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-907(E)(1) — 1 case
State v. Hon. brain/hu, 422 P.3d 1065 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
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.