A. For all persons who committed felony offenses before January 1, 1994, the board of executive clemency shall have exclusive power to pass on and recommend reprieves, commutations, paroles and pardons. A reprieve, commutation or pardon may not be granted by the governor unless it has first been recommended by the board.
B. For all persons who committed felony offenses before January 1, 1994, all applications for reprieves, commutations and pardons made to the governor shall be at once transmitted to the chairperson of the board, and the board shall return the applications with its recommendation to the governor. All applications for reprieves, commutations and pardons made to the governor shall include documentation that the victim or the victim's family was notified pursuant to section 31-411, subsection H.
C. For all persons who committed felony offenses on or after January 1, 1994, in addition to the powers and duties prescribed in subsection A of this section, the board of executive clemency:
1. Is vested with the powers and duties of the board of pardons and paroles as they existed before January 1, 1994 to carry out articles 3, 4.1, 5, 6 and 7 of this chapter.
2. After a hearing for which the victim, county attorney and presiding judge are given notice and an opportunity to be heard, may make recommendations to the governor for commutation of sentence after finding by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence imposed is clearly excessive given the nature of the offense and the record of the offender and that there is a substantial probability that when released the offender will conform the offender's conduct to the requirements of the law.
3. Shall receive petitions from individuals for whom the court has entered a special order allowing the person to petition the board pursuant to section 13-603, subsection L and may make recommendations to the governor.
4. Shall receive petitions from individuals, organizations or the department for review and commutation of sentences and pardoning of offenders in extraordinary cases and may make recommendations to the governor.
5. Shall receive petitions from the state department of corrections alleging that an offender has violated the offender's terms and conditions of community supervision and has lapsed or is probably about to lapse into criminal ways or company. If the board determines that an offender on community supervision has violated the terms and conditions of community supervision the board may do any of the following:
(a) If the offender has not committed an additional offense, place the offender on electronic monitoring.
(b) Revoke community supervision and return the offender to prison for the remainder of the offender's community supervision.
(c) Impose additional terms and conditions on the offender while keeping the offender on community supervision. If there is reasonable cause to believe that an offender who has been kept on community supervision has violated any term or condition of community supervision, any member of the board may petition the board to revoke community supervision. After a petition to revoke has been submitted, the chairperson may issue a summons directing the offender to appear on a specified date for a revocation hearing or may issue a warrant for the offender's arrest. This subsection does not limit the state department of corrections' authority with respect to submitting revocation petitions or issuing revocation warrants.
D. Any recommendation for commutation that is made unanimously by the members present and voting and that is not acted on by the governor within ninety days after the board submits its recommendation to the governor automatically becomes effective.
E. The executive director shall perform all administrative, operational and financial functions for the board.
F. The executive director may employ case analysts as deemed necessary within the limits of legislative appropriation and subject to title 41, chapter 4, article 4. The analysts shall aid the board in making investigations, in securing information and in performing necessary administrative functions to assist the board in passing on applications for parole and commutation.
G. The executive director may employ hearing officers as deemed necessary within the limits of legislative appropriation and subject to title 41, chapter 4, article 4. The hearing officers shall conduct probable cause hearings on parole, work furlough, community supervision and home arrest revocations or rescissions. Hearing officers shall assist the board in making investigations, securing information and performing necessary administrative functions.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
50
cases (
8 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case:
State v. Wagstaff, 794 P.2d 118 (Ariz. 1990).
State v. Wagstaff, 794 P.2d 118 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 20× “See A.R.S. § 31-402. These investigations and recommendations sometimes are made many years after court officials have last seen the convicted person.”
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera, 334 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 4× “Nonetheless, Vera is correct that, when his sentence was imposed, the court had been mistaken about the availability of parole or other systematic release and that, in fact, his “only possibility of release after 25 years [would have been] through a pardon or commutation by the…”
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn, 459 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2020).
· cites it 3× “S. § 31-402(C)(2). The Board of Executive Clemency may grant parole by a majority or unanimous vote, whereas it may only recommend commutation to the Governor for approval.”
State v. Wagstaff, 775 P.2d 1130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 4× “1982); A.R.S. § 31-402(A). Second, A.R.S. § 13-604.”
State v. Womble, 235 P.3d 244 (Ariz. 2010).
· cites it 4× “He argues that the court’s “warnings” led him to believe that he should not present his full statement. ¶ 43 At the beginning of the aggravation phase, the trial court advised Womble of his *102 right to allocution and explained the State’s right to rebut certain statements.”
State v. Uriarte, 981 P.2d 575 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 31-402(C)(5) (1996). ¶ 31 These provisions establish that imprisonment during the term of community supervision is not part of the "sentence of imprisonment" at issue in determining the appropriate number of jurors.”
State v. Cowles, 82 P.3d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 31-402(C)(5)(a) (2002). He should have remained incarcerated until February 13, 2003.”
McDonald v. Thomas, 12 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 14× “A.R.S. § 31-402 (Supp. 1999-2000). As one article described the system, "The functional consequence of this clemency legal structure is to largely remove the Governor from the dynamics at work in a clemency effort, while still affording the Governor the power to ultimately…”
State v. Randles, 334 P.3d 730 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Thus, based on Miller , Randles argues that his sentence is unconstitutional.”
State v. Lyons, 804 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1990).
· cites it 4× “1982); A.R.S. § 31-402(A). There was no indication that the legislature intended to divest the parole board of this authority when it drafted the statute.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(A) — 15 cases
State v. Wagstaff, 794 P.2d 118 (Ariz. 1990).
“See A.R.S. § 31-402. These investigations and recommendations sometimes are made many years after court officials have last seen the convicted person.”
State v. Wagstaff, 775 P.2d 1130 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“1982); A.R.S. § 31-402(A). Second, A.R.S. § 13-604.”
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn, 459 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2020).
“S. § 31-402(C)(2). The Board of Executive Clemency may grant parole by a majority or unanimous vote, whereas it may only recommend commutation to the Governor for approval.”
State v. Lyons, 804 P.2d 744 (Ariz. 1990).
“1982); A.R.S. § 31-402(A). There was no indication that the legislature intended to divest the parole board of this authority when it drafted the statute.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(B) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(C) — 7 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera, 334 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Nonetheless, Vera is correct that, when his sentence was imposed, the court had been mistaken about the availability of parole or other systematic release and that, in fact, his “only possibility of release after 25 years [would have been] through a pardon or commutation by the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(C)(2) — 3 cases
Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn, 459 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2020).
“S. § 31-402(C)(2). The Board of Executive Clemency may grant parole by a majority or unanimous vote, whereas it may only recommend commutation to the Governor for approval.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(C)(4) — 2 cases
State of Arizona v. Ronnie Roy Vera, 334 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“Nonetheless, Vera is correct that, when his sentence was imposed, the court had been mistaken about the availability of parole or other systematic release and that, in fact, his “only possibility of release after 25 years [would have been] through a pardon or commutation by the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(C)(5) — 1 case
State v. Uriarte, 981 P.2d 575 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998).
“A.R.S. § 31-402(C)(5) (1996). ¶ 31 These provisions establish that imprisonment during the term of community supervision is not part of the "sentence of imprisonment" at issue in determining the appropriate number of jurors.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(C)(5)(a) — 1 case
State v. Cowles, 82 P.3d 369 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
“See A.R.S. § 31-402(C)(5)(a) (2002). He should have remained incarcerated until February 13, 2003.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(C)(5)(b) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-402(D) — 2 cases
McDonald v. Thomas, 12 P.3d 1194 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
“A.R.S. § 31-402 (Supp. 1999-2000). As one article described the system, "The functional consequence of this clemency legal structure is to largely remove the Governor from the dynamics at work in a clemency effort, while still affording the Governor the power to ultimately…”
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.