Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 31
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-144 (2026)

Double time allowance for work done outside jail as trusty

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

A. A prisoner in a city, town or county jail, while working on the public streets, highways or other public works as a trusty outside the jail without requiring armed guards, or while holding a position of trust either within or without the jail, shall be allowed double time while so employed and each day he is so employed shall be counted as two days in computing time on his sentence except in cases in which a specific release date is set forth in the commitment.

B. In case of a breach of trust by a prisoner, the chief of police or sheriff may declare the double time forfeited.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1970–2021 · leading case: Application of Webb, 723 P.2d 642 (Ariz. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Application of Webb, 723 P.2d 642 (Ariz. 1986). · cites it 11× “The statute reads as follows: “§ 31-144. Double time allowance for work done outside jail as trusty A.”
State v. Cutler, 590 P.2d 444 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 4× “The defendant, therefore, could reasonably have believed that the maximum incarceration that he faced, as a result of his plea, was six months in the county jail.”
Escalanti v. Superior Court, 799 P.2d 5 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 31-144. Because such labor reduces the total jail term, it is presumably rehabilitative.”
Pickett v. Boykin, 576 P.2d 120 (Ariz. 1978). · cites it 2× “He contends that this so-called “flat time” condition is not enforceable, and he may qualify for double time allowance pursuant to A.R.S. § 31-144. In support of his position the petitioner cites State v.”
State v. Soto, 616 P.2d 937 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 31-144. From this premise, the defendant points out that a class 6 felony carries a maximum punishment of 22.”
Moore v. Maricopa Cnty., 466 P.2d 56 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). “Section 31-144. Plaintiff elected — or at least did not refuse — to participate, and after working briefly on one or two other municipal projects, commenced working as a collector for the City of Tolleson’s municipal garbage collection service.”
State v. Yug, 501 P.3d 246 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 12× “”) § 31-144 when it imposed prison sentences on Hilary Gorong Yug, Kody Joe Del Fay, and Alvin Everett Charley (collectively, “Defendants”).”
State v. Layman, 573 P.2d 909 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 31-144 authorizes “double-time” credits in the county jail under certain circumstances.”
State v. Rosu, 640 P.2d 207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “J, and CORCORAN, J, concur. . Although the particular statute has not been cited to this court, it appears that the defendant earned double-time credit pursuant to A.”
Metro Collections v. Meggers, 886 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 31-144(A) held to be no more than a codification of the decision in Pickett v.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-144(A) — 3 cases
Application of Webb, 723 P.2d 642 (Ariz. 1986). “The statute reads as follows: “§ 31-144. Double time allowance for work done outside jail as trusty A.”
State v. Yug, 501 P.3d 246 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021). “”) § 31-144 when it imposed prison sentences on Hilary Gorong Yug, Kody Joe Del Fay, and Alvin Everett Charley (collectively, “Defendants”).”
Metro Collections v. Meggers, 886 P.2d 649 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “section 31-144(A) held to be no more than a codification of the decision in Pickett v.”
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.