A. The board of executive clemency is established consisting of five members who are appointed by the governor pursuant to this subsection and section 38-211.
B. The members of the board shall serve on a full-time basis and receive compensation as determined pursuant to section 38-611, subsection A. Beginning from and after December 31, 2013, members of the board are eligible for any benefits that are provided to state employees pursuant to section 38-651. Each member shall be appointed on the basis of broad professional or educational qualifications and experience and shall have demonstrated an interest in the state's correctional program. No more than two members from the same professional discipline shall be members of the board at the same time.
C. Each member appointed to the board shall complete a four-week course relating to the duties and activities of the board. The course shall be designed and administered by the chairman of the board and shall be conducted by the office of the board of executive clemency and the office of the attorney general. The course shall include training in all statutes that pertain to the board and participation in a decision making workshop.
D. Members shall be appointed for a term of five years to expire on the third Monday in January of the appropriate year.
E. A member of the board may be removed by the governor for cause.
F. The governor shall select a member of the board as chairman. The chairman shall select other officers as are advisable. The term of the chairman is two years, except that the chairman may be removed as chairman at the pleasure of the governor. If a board member's term expires while the member is serving as chairman, the chair shall be deemed vacant and a new chairman shall be selected.
G. The board may adopt rules, not inconsistent with law, as it deems proper for the conduct of its business. The board may from time to time amend or change the rules and publish and distribute the rules as provided by the administrative procedures act.
H. The board shall meet at least once a month at the state prison and at other times or places as the board deems necessary.
I. The presence of three members of the board constitutes a quorum, except that the chairman may designate that the presence of two members of the board constitutes a quorum.
J. If two members of the board constitute a quorum pursuant to subsection I of this section and the two members do not concur on the action under consideration, the chairman of the board, if the chairman is not one of the members who constituted the quorum and after reviewing the information considered by the two members, shall cast the deciding vote. If the chairman of the board is one of the two members constituting a quorum at a hearing under subsection I of this section, and there is not concurrence on the action under consideration, the action fails.
K. The board shall employ an executive director whose compensation shall be determined pursuant to section 38-611. The executive director serves at the pleasure of the board and reports to the board through the chairman of the board.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1962–2020 · leading case:
Johnson v. Mofford, 975 P.2d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
Johnson v. Mofford, 975 P.2d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 11× “¶ 10 We first consider Johnson’s contention that the superior court mistakenly found that the “walk-out” constituted cause for Governor Mofford to remove him from the Board.”
Chamberlain v. Mathis, 729 P.2d 905 (Ariz. 1986).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 31-401(A) (Supp.1985). Also, the board enjoys wide discretion in the exercise of its duties.”
Johnson v. Mofford, 890 P.2d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 6× “Johnson was appointed to the Board by the Governor pursuant to A.R.S. § 31-401(A) and A.R.S. § 38-211. As an executive appointee, he was not subject to the provisions of the state personnel administration.”
State v. Steiger, 781 P.2d 616 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 31-401 (1986). The executive director of the board was Ms.”
State v. Stine, 906 P.2d 58 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 31-401 (1994). Among its enumerated powers and duties, the Board of Executive Clemency was granted “exclusive power to pass upon and recommend reprieves, commutations, paroles and pardons” for all persons who committed felony offenses before the effective date of the…”
State v. Settle, 512 P.2d 46 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1973).
· cites it 2× “§ 13-1657 with A.R.S. § 31-401 through 414. This distinction was noted by Justice Douglas in his separate opinion in Morrissey in which he stated that since parole, unlike probation, is largely administrative, it requires closer scrutiny and stricter rules to insure due process.”
McGee v. Arizona State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 376 P.2d 779 (Ariz. 1962).
· cites it 2× “By statute, the Board of Pardons and Paroles consists of the Attorney General, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and a third member selected by them, known as the citizen member, who is chairman, A.R.S. § 31-401. Although the Governor may grant reprieves, commutations…”
Arnold v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 805 P.2d 388 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Appellants argue that the ex post facto clause applies to administrative regulations that are adopted pursuant to statute, in this case, A.R.S. § 31-401(F). The board does not dispute that fact, and neither do we.”
State ex rel. Gonzalez v. Superior Court, 907 P.2d 72 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“A unanimous affirmative vote if two members consider the action pursuant to § 31-401, subsection I, paragraph 2 and the chairman concurs after reviewing the information considered by the two members.”
State v. Nguyen, 912 P.2d 1380 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996).
“”) § 31-401 (Supp.1995) (creating the Board).”
Meredith v. Raines, 640 P.2d 175 (Ariz. 1982).
· cites it 2× “The rules of procedure before the Board of Pardons and Paroles were promulgated under the authority of A.R.S. § 31-401, et seq. Even though we may require all conditions of probation to be in writing, it does not follow that the Board of Pardons and Paroles must do likewise so…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-401(A) — 3 cases
Chamberlain v. Mathis, 729 P.2d 905 (Ariz. 1986).
“A.R.S. § 31-401(A) (Supp.1985). Also, the board enjoys wide discretion in the exercise of its duties.”
Johnson v. Mofford, 890 P.2d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Johnson was appointed to the Board by the Governor pursuant to A.R.S. § 31-401(A) and A.R.S. § 38-211. As an executive appointee, he was not subject to the provisions of the state personnel administration.”
Johnson v. Mofford, 975 P.2d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“¶ 10 We first consider Johnson’s contention that the superior court mistakenly found that the “walk-out” constituted cause for Governor Mofford to remove him from the Board.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-401(B) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Mofford, 975 P.2d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“¶ 10 We first consider Johnson’s contention that the superior court mistakenly found that the “walk-out” constituted cause for Governor Mofford to remove him from the Board.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-401(D) — 2 cases
Johnson v. Mofford, 975 P.2d 130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“¶ 10 We first consider Johnson’s contention that the superior court mistakenly found that the “walk-out” constituted cause for Governor Mofford to remove him from the Board.”
Johnson v. Mofford, 890 P.2d 76 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1995).
“Johnson was appointed to the Board by the Governor pursuant to A.R.S. § 31-401(A) and A.R.S. § 38-211. As an executive appointee, he was not subject to the provisions of the state personnel administration.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-401(F) — 1 case
Arnold v. Arizona Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 805 P.2d 388 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
“Appellants argue that the ex post facto clause applies to administrative regulations that are adopted pursuant to statute, in this case, A.R.S. § 31-401(F). The board does not dispute that fact, and neither do we.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-401(G) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-401(I) — 1 case
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.