A. An adult probation officer shall prepare a presentence report for every offender who has either:
1. Been convicted of a felony and for whom the granting of probation is not prohibited by law.
2. Violated probation by commission of a technical violation that was not chargeable or indictable as a criminal offense.
B. The adult probation officer shall evaluate the needs of the offender and the offender's risk to the community, including the nature of the offense and criminal history of the offender. If the nature of the offense and the prior criminal history of the offender indicate that the offender should be included in an intensive probation program pursuant to supreme court guidelines for intensive probation, the adult probation officer may recommend to the court that the offender be granted intensive probation.
C. The court may suspend the imposition of sentence and grant the offender a period of intensive probation in accordance with this chapter. The suspension of sentence may be modified or revoked pursuant to this chapter.
D. When granting intensive probation the court shall set forth on the record the factual and legal reasons in support of the sentence.
E. The court may grant intensive probation only to a person with high risk and high need who is eligible for a grant of probation.
F. Intensive probation shall be conditioned on the offender:
1. Maintaining employment or full-time student status at a school subject to title 15 or title 32, chapter 30, or a combination of employment and student status, and making progress deemed satisfactory to the probation officer, or being involved in supervised job searches and community restitution work at least six days a week throughout the offender's term of intensive probation.
2. Paying restitution.
3. Paying probation fees of not less than $75 unless, after determining the inability of the offender to pay the fee, the court assesses a lesser fee. Probation fees shall be deposited in the adult probation services fund established by section 12-267. Any amount assessed pursuant to this paragraph shall be used to supplement monies used for the salaries of adult probation and surveillance officers and for support of programs and services of the superior court adult probation departments.
4. Paying monetary obligations imposed by the court.
5. Complying with any other conditions imposed by the court in order to meet the needs of the offender and limit the risks to the community.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1990–2020 · leading case:
State v. Watson, 459 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
State v. Watson, 459 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “¶28 This is not to say that Muldoon’s pronouncement concerning the distinctions between probation and a sentence is no longer applicable; the fact remains that a court must suspend imposition or execution of a sentence to place a defendant on probation.”
State v. Woodruff, 997 P.2d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 11× “”) section 13-914 (Supp.1998) and Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No.”
Bailey v. State, 734 A.2d 684 (Md. 1999).
“Ill 1998); Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 13-914 (West 1989 & 1998 Supp.”
State v. Galvan-Cardenas, 799 P.2d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 13-914. This statute requires that every presentence report contain an evaluation of an offender for possible inclusion in the intensive probation supervision program.”
State v. Gatlin, 831 P.2d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
· cites it 3× “This reading of §§ 13-914 and 13-915 appears to be in harmony with the trial court’s general authority to modify probation.”
State v. Brown, 816 P.2d 932 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “The judge specified that the probation was intensive, see A.R.S. § 13-914, and, as a condition of intensive probation, ordered shock incarceration for a period of 120 days, plus a screening period of up to 45 days.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-914(A)(2) — 1 case
State v. Woodruff, 997 P.2d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“”) section 13-914 (Supp.1998) and Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-914(B) — 1 case
State v. Woodruff, 997 P.2d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“”) section 13-914 (Supp.1998) and Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-914(C) — 3 cases
State v. Watson, 459 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“¶28 This is not to say that Muldoon’s pronouncement concerning the distinctions between probation and a sentence is no longer applicable; the fact remains that a court must suspend imposition or execution of a sentence to place a defendant on probation.”
State v. Woodruff, 997 P.2d 544 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“”) section 13-914 (Supp.1998) and Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Order No.”
State v. Gatlin, 831 P.2d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992).
“This reading of §§ 13-914 and 13-915 appears to be in harmony with the trial court’s general authority to modify probation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-914(D) — 1 case
State v. Watson, 459 P.3d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“¶28 This is not to say that Muldoon’s pronouncement concerning the distinctions between probation and a sentence is no longer applicable; the fact remains that a court must suspend imposition or execution of a sentence to place a defendant on probation.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-914(E)(3) — 1 case
State v. Galvan-Cardenas, 799 P.2d 19 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“A.R.S. § 13-914. This statute requires that every presentence report contain an evaluation of an offender for possible inclusion in the intensive probation supervision program.”
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.