A. The justice courts shall have jurisdiction of the following offenses committed within their respective precincts:
1. Misdemeanors and criminal offenses punishable by a fine of not more than $2,500, or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than six months, or by both a fine and imprisonment. Any penalty or other added assessments levied shall not be considered as part of the fine for purposes of determining jurisdiction. The amount of restitution, time payment fees or incarceration costs shall not be considered as part of the fine for purposes of determining jurisdiction.
2. Felonies, but only for the purpose of commencing action and conducting proceedings through preliminary examinations and holding the defendant to answer to the superior court or to discharge the defendant if it appears that there is not probable cause to believe the defendant is guilty of an offense.
B. In a county with a population of more than two million persons, the justice of the peace of each justice precinct shall have original jurisdiction to hear misdemeanor offenses as set forth in subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section that occur within the respective precinct in which the justice of the peace is elected unless either of the following applies:
1. The offense is filed by a municipal officer or agent in a municipal court.
2. The offense is consolidated with a felony offense in the complaint, information or indictment.
C. For the purposes of subsection A or B of this section, an offense is committed within the precinct of a justice court if conduct constituting any element of the offense or a result of the conduct occurs:
1. Within the precinct.
2. Within a county park that includes a body of water located in two counties if one county has a population of more than three million persons and one county has a population of more than two hundred thousand persons but less than three hundred thousand persons and the precinct includes some part of the county park.
D. If a uniform traffic ticket and complaint is filed in the incorrect precinct and that precinct is on the boundary of the precinct where the offense occurred, the case may be transferred to the correct precinct if both precincts are in the same county. This subsection does not affect the applicability of section 13-109.
Notes of Decisions
Lay v. Nelson In & For Cnty. Of Yuma, 436 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 36× “¶3 At the close of the State's case, Lay moved for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, arguing the State had failed to offer evidence that he committed the crimes within the precinct as required by A.R.S. § 22-301. The justice court denied the…”
City Court of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert, 565 P.2d 531 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 22× “§ 22-402 and A.R.S. § 22-301. A.R.S. § 22-402(B) confers upon city police courts “jurisdiction concurrently with justices of the peace of precincts in which the city or town is located, of violations of laws of the state committed within the limits of the city or town.”
State Ex Rel. Milstead v. Melvin, 682 P.2d 407 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 8× “6, § 32; A.R.S. § 22-301. Maintaining that such motions produce the same practical effect as criminal motions to suppress, appellant argues that this court should treat motions to controvert search warrants issued in felony investigations as criminal matters to be decided…”
State Ex Rel. Brannan v. Williams, 171 P.3d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 9× “§ 13-110 does not strip the justice courts of jurisdiction properly conferred by § 22-301(A) to adjudicate misdemeanor charges of attempted possession of marijuana and attempted possession of drug paraphernalia.”
State Ex Rel. Larson v. Farley, 471 P.2d 731 (Ariz. 1970).
· cites it 3× “This would exceed the jurisdiction of the justice court under § 22-301, A.R.S., as amended, which reads in part: “ARTICLE 1.”
City of Phoenix v. Super. Ct., Maricopa Cty., 677 P.2d 1283 (Ariz. 1984).
· cites it 2× “We note at the outset that the city has concurrent jurisdiction with justices of the peace over state crimes committed within the city limits, A.R.S. § 22-301, City Court of the City of Phoenix v.”
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. Mun. Court of Phoenix, 606 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Justice of the Peace courts are specifically given jurisdiction over petty theft in A.R.S. § 22-301(1). Therefore, the Municipal Court had subject matter jurisdiction of the offenses charged in the complaint against appellee Ratliff.”
Bruce v. State, 614 P.2d 813 (Ariz. 1980).
· cites it 2× “§§ 22-301 and 22-402(B) grant inferior courts jurisdiction over assault and battery offenses “not charged to have been committed upon a public officer in the discharge of his duties . (Emphasis added.) The legislature has thus explicitly excluded charges brought under A.”
State v. Piedra, 583 P.2d 1373 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 5× “Thereafter, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 22-301, by adding subsection 5, so as to limit the jurisdiction of the justice of the peace court, as follows: “The justice of the peace courts shall have jurisdiction of the following offenses committed within their respective…”
Wilson v. Garrett, 448 P.2d 857 (Ariz. 1969).
· cites it 4× “Almost invariably, as was originally done in the instant case, a criminal complaint is filed with the justice of the peace in whose precinct the offense was committed. He then acts as a magistrate at a preliminary examination to determine whether there is probable cause to hold…”
State v. Reed, 583 P.2d 1378 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 4× “2d 264 (1966), is the principle that the jurisdiction of justice of the peace courts is not limited to the matters set forth in § 22-301, but rather such jurisdiction may also be gleaned from other statutory provisions, such as the provisions of A.”
Palmer v. Superior Court, 560 P.2d 797 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 2× “6 § 32 Arizona Constitution; A.R.S. § 22-301. There is no requirement that the justices of the peace be lawyers.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(1) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Baumert v. Mun. Court of Phoenix, 606 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).
“Justice of the Peace courts are specifically given jurisdiction over petty theft in A.R.S. § 22-301(1). Therefore, the Municipal Court had subject matter jurisdiction of the offenses charged in the complaint against appellee Ratliff.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(2) — 2 cases
City Court of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert, 565 P.2d 531 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“§ 22-402 and A.R.S. § 22-301. A.R.S. § 22-402(B) confers upon city police courts “jurisdiction concurrently with justices of the peace of precincts in which the city or town is located, of violations of laws of the state committed within the limits of the city or town.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(4) — 1 case
City Court of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert, 565 P.2d 531 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“§ 22-402 and A.R.S. § 22-301. A.R.S. § 22-402(B) confers upon city police courts “jurisdiction concurrently with justices of the peace of precincts in which the city or town is located, of violations of laws of the state committed within the limits of the city or town.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(5) — 2 cases
City Court of Phoenix v. State ex rel. Baumert, 565 P.2d 531 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977).
“§ 22-402 and A.R.S. § 22-301. A.R.S. § 22-402(B) confers upon city police courts “jurisdiction concurrently with justices of the peace of precincts in which the city or town is located, of violations of laws of the state committed within the limits of the city or town.”
State v. Reed, 583 P.2d 1378 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978).
“2d 264 (1966), is the principle that the jurisdiction of justice of the peace courts is not limited to the matters set forth in § 22-301, but rather such jurisdiction may also be gleaned from other statutory provisions, such as the provisions of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(A) — 3 cases
Lay v. Nelson In & For Cnty. Of Yuma, 436 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶3 At the close of the State's case, Lay moved for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, arguing the State had failed to offer evidence that he committed the crimes within the precinct as required by A.R.S. § 22-301. The justice court denied the…”
State Ex Rel. Brannan v. Williams, 171 P.3d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 13-110 does not strip the justice courts of jurisdiction properly conferred by § 22-301(A) to adjudicate misdemeanor charges of attempted possession of marijuana and attempted possession of drug paraphernalia.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(A)(1) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Brannan v. Williams, 171 P.3d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 13-110 does not strip the justice courts of jurisdiction properly conferred by § 22-301(A) to adjudicate misdemeanor charges of attempted possession of marijuana and attempted possession of drug paraphernalia.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(A)(2) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(A)(l) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Brannan v. Williams, 171 P.3d 1248 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“§ 13-110 does not strip the justice courts of jurisdiction properly conferred by § 22-301(A) to adjudicate misdemeanor charges of attempted possession of marijuana and attempted possession of drug paraphernalia.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-301(C) — 2 cases
Lay v. Nelson In & For Cnty. Of Yuma, 436 P.3d 496 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).
“¶3 At the close of the State's case, Lay moved for judgment of acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20, arguing the State had failed to offer evidence that he committed the crimes within the precinct as required by A.R.S. § 22-301. The justice court denied the…”
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.