Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-403 (2026)

Commutation; restrictions on consideration

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

31-403. Commutation; restrictions on consideration

A. A person who is otherwise eligible for commutation and who is denied a commutation of sentence recommendation shall not petition or be considered by the board for commutation of that sentence for a period of five years following the date of the board's denial of the commutation recommendation if the offense for which the commutation recommendation was denied involved any of the following:

1. Death in violation of section 13-1104 or 13-1105.

2. Serious physical injury if the person was sentenced pursuant to section 13-704.

3. A dangerous crime against children as defined in section 13-705.

4. A felony offense in violation of title 13, chapter 14 or 35.1.

B. Notwithstanding subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section, if, in its sole discretion, the board determines that the person committed an offense that involved serious physical injury as defined in section 13-105 and that the person was not sentenced pursuant to section 13-704, the board may order that the person shall not petition or be considered by the board for commutation of that sentence for a period of five years following the date of the board's denial of the commutation recommendation.

C. Notwithstanding subsection A or B of this section, the board, at the time of denial, may lengthen the five year period of time prescribed in subsection A or B of this section to a period of up to ten years, except that if the offense for which commutation was denied involved a violation of an offense listed in subsection A, paragraph 1 of this section, the board may lengthen the period of time to a period of time that is greater than ten years and that is specified by the board by one of the following votes:

1. A majority affirmative vote if four or more members consider the action.

2. A unanimous affirmative vote if three members consider the action.

3. A unanimous affirmative vote if two members consider the action pursuant to section 31-401, subsection I and the chairman concurs after reviewing the information considered by the two members. If the chairman is one of the two members constituting a two member quorum under section 31-401, subsection I, and both the chairman and the other member vote to lengthen the five year period to a period of time greater than ten years, no further action shall be taken and the decision on whether to lengthen the five year period shall be considered by the board at a meeting at which at least three members are present and voting.

D. The board may waive the provisions of subsections A, B and C of this section if any of the following applies:

1. The person is in imminent danger of death due to a medical condition, as determined by the board.

2. The person is the subject of a warrant of execution.

3. The sentence for which commutation is sought is the subject of a special order issued by the court pursuant to section 13-603, subsection L.

E. This section applies only to offenses that are committed on or after January 1, 2006.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1962–2026 · leading case: Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn, 459 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Abelardo Chaparro v. David C Shinn, 459 P.3d 50 (Ariz. 2020). · cites it 2× “Individuals not granted parole are automatically re-certified within six months to a year, but an inmate denied commutation typically must wait five to ten years before reapplying.”

State Ex Rel. Ariz. St. Bd. of P. & P. v. Superior Court of Maricopa Cnty., 467 P.2d 917 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 2× “In McGee the Supreme Court commented upon the fact that the Board had not adopted rules as authorized by A.R.S. § 31-403. It is interesting to note that this section was repealed by § 10, subd.”

McGee v. Arizona State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, 376 P.2d 779 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 2× “However, the Board is authorized to make rules and regulations not inconsistent with law as it deems proper for the conduct of its business, A.R.S. § 31-403. By A.R.S. § 41-1004 the rules and regulations of state agencies must be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State.”

State ex rel. Arizona State Bd. of Pardons & Paroles v. Superior Court, 469 P.2d 120 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1970). · cites it 6× “The response of The Attorney General has called our attention to this statement. We believe we should correct the record.”

Davis v. Adcrr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 11× “He also contends the superior court erred in interpreting "calendar year" because the statutory definition would conflict with A.R.S. § 31-403, which governs commutation.”

Viramontes 146961 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2021). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 31-403(A). 19 Faced with the realization that he was misadvised by his attorney, Petitioner filed a 20 pro se Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on April 17, 2014, arguing that he had newly 21 discovered evidence and his failure to file a timely notice was without fault…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-403(A) — 1 case

Viramontes 146961 v. Shinn (D. Ariz. 2021). “A.R.S. § 31-403(A). 19 Faced with the realization that he was misadvised by his attorney, Petitioner filed a 20 pro se Notice of Post-Conviction Relief on April 17, 2014, arguing that he had newly 21 discovered evidence and his failure to file a timely notice was without fault…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 31-403(A)(1) — 1 case

Davis v. Adcrr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2026). “He also contends the superior court erred in interpreting "calendar year" because the statutory definition would conflict with A.R.S. § 31-403, which governs commutation.”

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.