A. The director has the authority to require that each able-bodied prisoner under commitment to the state department of corrections engage in hard labor for not less than forty hours per week, except that not more than twenty hours per week of participation in an educational, training or treatment program may be substituted for an equivalent number of hours of hard labor as prescribed by the director of the state department of corrections. The director may require retention of earnings for the purposes authorized by section 31-254.
B. The director shall establish a prisoner labor classification system to insure that:
1. A prisoner receives work assignments commensurate and compatible with the condition and limitations of his physical and mental health.
2. No prisoner participates in a work assignment that threatens the safety or security of the public, the correctional institution or the prisoner.
3. Each prisoner is generally assessed for skills related to the construction and maintenance of prison facilities.
4. Each prisoner who does not present a risk to the public and who is not limited by his physical or mental health may be assigned to a work crew.
C. Each prisoner committed to the department shall be classified pursuant to the prisoner labor classification system established by the director. The director or his designee shall review and approve each classification of a prisoner that results in exempting the prisoner from engaging in the hard labor requirements of subsection A of this section.
D. In this article, "hard labor" means compulsory physical activity for the attainment of some object other than recreation or amusement but does not include physical activity that is not within the ability of an individual prisoner.
E. Notwithstanding any other law, no prisoner given a work assignment or required to perform any labor by the state department of corrections shall be considered an employee or to be employed by the state or the state department of corrections, regardless of whether the prisoner is compensated or not, nor shall an employee-employer relationship exist between the prisoner and the state department of corrections or the state for any purpose and none of the rights or privileges otherwise accorded to employees by law shall accrue to such prisoners.
Notes of Decisions
State v. Valenzuela, 695 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 10× “The state agrees, therefore, that old code prisoners are entitled to earn copper time and double time in accordance with the provisions of former A.R.S. §§ 31-251 and 252. *47 FORFEITURE Valenzuela claims that this same principle is applicable to forfeiture.”
Escalanti v. Dep't of Corr., 851 P.2d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 16× “Escalanti argues that, under statutes in effect at the time of his sentencing, his statutory credits under A.R.S. § 31-251 (“copper time”) and A.R.S.”
William Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 3× “” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-251 (A). Most inmates satisfy this requirement by participating in the ADC’s Work Incentive Pay Program (WIPP).”
State v. Deddens, 542 P.2d 1124 (Ariz. 1975).
· cites it 8× “63-65) to the effect that the good behavior deduction of A.R.S. § 31-251 and the double time deduction of A.”
Michael D. McFarland v. Robert J. Cassady, 779 F.2d 1426 (9th Cir. 1986).
· cites it 3× “Appellant’s claim with respect to good-time credits is well-founded, however. Appellee virtually concedes that Arizona created a liberty interest in the receipt of good-time credits through its use of “mandatory language” in Ariz.”
State v. Davis, 712 P.2d 975 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 10× “He argues that the trial court’s previous order and McKellar forbid this result and that he is entitled to the benefit of earned time credits because of the state’s error in failing to keep him in custody.”
State v. Schackart, 947 P.2d 315 (Ariz. 1997).
· cites it 2× “” He has not cited the time or place of this statement, nor has he provided details of any hard labor program to which he has been subjected so that we may examine its legality as applied.”
State v. Cutler, 590 P.2d 444 (Ariz. 1979).
· cites it 4× “Moreover, this six months could have been reduced further with double-time credits pursuant to A.”
State v. Barnard, 612 P.2d 1073 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 5× “Watson , insofar as is relevant here, merely holds that the good behavior and double time credits granted by A.R.S. §§ 31-251 and 31-252 are matters of statutory right, while Rice does not examine at all the question whether, under A.”
Arnold v. Moran, 560 P.2d 1242 (Ariz. 1977).
· cites it 6× “§ 13-643(B) entitled to the time credits allowed under A.R.S. §§ 31-251 and 31-252? A.R.S. § 13—643(B) provides: “Robbery committed by a person armed with a gun or deadly weapon is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison, for the first offense, for not less than five…”
State v. Lee, 774 P.2d 228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 5× “§§ 41-1604, -1604.07, which direct the Department of Corrections to create two classes of parole eligible prisoners.”
Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1993).
· cites it 3× “” 4 Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 31-251(A). Pursuant to this requirement, Arizona prison authorities have structured various programs for convict labor, including the two programs involved in this case.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-251(A) — 10 cases
William Castle v. Eurofresh, Inc., 731 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2013).
“” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-251 (A). Most inmates satisfy this requirement by participating in the ADC’s Work Incentive Pay Program (WIPP).”
Hale v. Arizona, 993 F.2d 1387 (9th Cir. 1993).
“” 4 Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 31-251(A). Pursuant to this requirement, Arizona prison authorities have structured various programs for convict labor, including the two programs involved in this case.”
State v. Valenzuela, 695 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1985).
“The state agrees, therefore, that old code prisoners are entitled to earn copper time and double time in accordance with the provisions of former A.R.S. §§ 31-251 and 252. *47 FORFEITURE Valenzuela claims that this same principle is applicable to forfeiture.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-251(B) — 6 cases
Escalanti v. Dep't of Corr., 851 P.2d 151 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“Escalanti argues that, under statutes in effect at the time of his sentencing, his statutory credits under A.R.S. § 31-251 (“copper time”) and A.R.S.”
State v. Lee, 774 P.2d 228 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
“§§ 41-1604, -1604.07, which direct the Department of Corrections to create two classes of parole eligible prisoners.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-251(C) — 1 case
State v. Valenzuela, 695 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1985).
“The state agrees, therefore, that old code prisoners are entitled to earn copper time and double time in accordance with the provisions of former A.R.S. §§ 31-251 and 252. *47 FORFEITURE Valenzuela claims that this same principle is applicable to forfeiture.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-251(D) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-251(E) — 3 cases
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.