Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 22
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-371 (2026)

Right of appeal; procedure for taking appeal; transcript

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

A. The defendant in a criminal action may appeal to the superior court from the final judgment of a justice or municipal court.

B. The procedure for appeals from a justice or municipal court to the superior court shall be as provided by rules adopted by the supreme court.

C. In a trial in a justice or municipal court, a transcript of the proceedings may be ordered in the sole discretion of the superior court.

D. A defendant may not appeal from a judgment or sentence that is entered pursuant to a plea agreement or from an admission to a probation violation.

E. A victim, as defined in section 13-4401, may bring a special action seeking to enforce any right or to challenge an order denying any right guaranteed to victims.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2025 · leading case: State v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cnty., 380 P.2d 1009 (Ariz. 1963).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cnty., 380 P.2d 1009 (Ariz. 1963). · cites it 12× “*353 The pertinent statutes provide as follows: A.R.S. § 22-371. "A. The defendant in a criminal action may appeal to the superior court from the final judgment of a justice or police court.”
Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972). · cites it 2× “, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 22-371 et seq. (1956 and Supp.”
Cain v. City Court of City of Tucson, 659 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 8× “Effective in 1975, however, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 22-371 to allow a transcript of proceedings to be made in criminal cases in non-record courts.”
Fuenning v. Super. Ct. in & for Cty. of Maricopa, 680 P.2d 121 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “10 per cent or more by weight of alcohol in the ... blood." Defendant argued that we should accept jurisdiction because he has no remedy by appeal from the superior court for most of the issues argued below (see A.”
State v. Mangum, 150 P.3d 252 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “VI, § 16; A.R.S. §§ 22-371, 22-375; State v. Holland, 153 Ariz.”
Palmer v. Superior Court, 560 P.2d 797 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to A.R.S. § 22-371, a court reporter was also present.”
State v. Kaiser, 65 P.3d 463 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2003). “¶ 3 Charged with refusing to obey a peace officer, Kaiser was convicted in Scottsdale City Court for having violated Code § 19-13, which provides in pertinent part that “[n]o person shall refuse to obey a peace officer engaged in the discharge of his duty.”
Litak v. Scott, 676 P.2d 631 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 22-371(A). No specific provision of Title 22 provides for an appeal by the state, and if these were the only statutes applicable, we would have to hold the state has no right to appeal.”
Matter of Pima Cty., Juv. Action, Etc., 631 P.2d 526 (Ariz. 1981). · cites it 2× “…prescribed in A.R.S. § 22-374, except to note that in that situation only the defendant has the right to appeal. A.R.S. § 22-371.”
State v. Superior Court, 936 P.2d 558 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “The superior court found that, because Moore had an ownership interest in the home, he had not defaced or damaged “the property of another person” as required by Ariz.”
Fuenning v. Superior Court, 680 P.2d 121 (Ariz. 1983). · cites it 2× “” Defendant argued that we should accept jurisdiction because he has no remedy by appeal from the superior court for most of the issues argued below (see A.R.S. § 22-371 and Baca v. Don, 130 Ariz.”
Peterson v. Jacobson, 411 P.2d 31 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1966). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 22-371, as amended, provides: “A.”
Show all 44 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-371(A) — 6 cases
Litak v. Scott, 676 P.2d 631 (Ariz. 1984). “A.R.S. § 22-371(A). No specific provision of Title 22 provides for an appeal by the state, and if these were the only statutes applicable, we would have to hold the state has no right to appeal.”
State v. Superior Court, 936 P.2d 558 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997). “The superior court found that, because Moore had an ownership interest in the home, he had not defaced or damaged “the property of another person” as required by Ariz.”
Jordan v. McClennen, 307 P.3d 999 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
Patrick Whillock v. State of Arizona, 302 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
Shupe v. Pima Cnty. Adult Prob. Dep't (D. Ariz. 2025).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-371(C) — 1 case
Cain v. City Court of City of Tucson, 659 P.2d 649 (Ariz. 1983). “Effective in 1975, however, the legislature amended A.R.S. § 22-371 to allow a transcript of proceedings to be made in criminal cases in non-record courts.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 22-371(c) — 1 case
Cavanaugh v. Alfred, 733 P.2d 308 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986).
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.