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

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-915 (2026)

Wilful failure to pay; revocation of probation

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

13-915. Wilful failure to pay; revocation of probation

If the court finds that a defendant has wilfully failed to pay a fine, a surcharge, a fee, an assessment, restitution or incarceration costs or finds that a defendant has intentionally refused to make a good faith effort to obtain the monies required for the payment, the court may revoke the defendant's probation and sentence the defendant to prison pursuant to law.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1990–1994 · leading case: Nieuwenhuis v. Kelly, 795 P.2d 823 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Nieuwenhuis v. Kelly, 795 P.2d 823 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 5× “One of the conditions of probation was completion of the shock incarceration program set forth in A.R.S. § 13-915. After Nieuwenhuis failed to qualify for the program for medical reasons, he was ordered released from the Department of Corrections to the custody of the Pima…”
State v. Bradley, 858 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1993). · cites it 10× “He violated the terms of his probation and, after hearing, the trial court placed him on intensive probation supervision with the condition that he participate in the shock incarceration program established by A.R.S. § 13-915. Pursuant to § 13-915(A), Bradley was incarcerated in…”
State v. Gatlin, 831 P.2d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 8× “In 1988, the Arizona legislature passed A.R.S. § 13-915, commonly referred to as the shock incarceration program.”
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 885 P.2d 178 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “AR.S. § 13-915. By contrast, when, as here, ADOC admits an offender to the program, ADOC retains supervision of the offender on community release through ADOC parole officers.”
State v. Peralta, 856 P.2d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “”) section 13-915. While in that program, the defendant allegedly committed four rule violations: (1) talking in the chow line, (2) hiding a sock in his spare blanket, (3) getting into a shoving match with another inmate over a laundry bag, and (4) failing to complete a writing…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-915(A) — 3 cases
State v. Bradley, 858 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1993). “He violated the terms of his probation and, after hearing, the trial court placed him on intensive probation supervision with the condition that he participate in the shock incarceration program established by A.R.S. § 13-915. Pursuant to § 13-915(A), Bradley was incarcerated in…”
Nieuwenhuis v. Kelly, 795 P.2d 823 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “One of the conditions of probation was completion of the shock incarceration program set forth in A.R.S. § 13-915. After Nieuwenhuis failed to qualify for the program for medical reasons, he was ordered released from the Department of Corrections to the custody of the Pima…”
State v. Gatlin, 831 P.2d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “In 1988, the Arizona legislature passed A.R.S. § 13-915, commonly referred to as the shock incarceration program.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-915(B)(3) — 1 case
State v. Bradley, 858 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1993). “He violated the terms of his probation and, after hearing, the trial court placed him on intensive probation supervision with the condition that he participate in the shock incarceration program established by A.R.S. § 13-915. Pursuant to § 13-915(A), Bradley was incarcerated in…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-915(F) — 1 case
Long v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Parole, 885 P.2d 178 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “AR.S. § 13-915. By contrast, when, as here, ADOC admits an offender to the program, ADOC retains supervision of the offender on community release through ADOC parole officers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-915(G) — 2 cases
State v. Gatlin, 831 P.2d 417 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). “In 1988, the Arizona legislature passed A.R.S. § 13-915, commonly referred to as the shock incarceration program.”
State v. Bradley, 858 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1993). “He violated the terms of his probation and, after hearing, the trial court placed him on intensive probation supervision with the condition that he participate in the shock incarceration program established by A.R.S. § 13-915. Pursuant to § 13-915(A), Bradley was incarcerated in…”
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.