A. Except as provided in this section, a person who violates this chapter:
1. Without the intent to defraud or mislead is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
2. With the intent to defraud or mislead is guilty of a class 5 felony.
B. A person who violates section 32-1965, paragraph 4 or article 3.1 of this chapter is guilty of a class 2 felony.
C. Any person who secures a license or permit for that person or for another person by knowingly making a false representation, who fraudulently claims to be licensed as a pharmacist or pharmacy intern within the meaning of this chapter or who knowingly engages in the practice of pharmacy without a license is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
D. A person who secures a license as a pharmacy technician or a registration as a pharmacy technician trainee for that person or for another person by knowingly making a false representation, who fraudulently claims to be licensed as a pharmacy technician or registered as a pharmacy technician trainee or who knowingly performs the duties of a pharmacy technician or a pharmacy technician trainee without a license or registration is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
E. A person who dispenses a human growth hormone in violation of this chapter is guilty of a class 6 felony.
F. A court convicting any person for a violation of this chapter shall, immediately after the date of conviction, send a complete copy of the record of the conviction, including the person's name and offense committed, to the executive director of the board.
G. A person who violates section 32-1978 shall be issued a civil penalty only as set forth in that section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
16
cases, 1973–1985 · leading case:
State v. Dungan, 718 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
State v. Dungan, 718 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 5× “§ 32-1970 (repealed 1981) in conjunction with the definition of dangerous drugs in § 32-1901(9)(a) (amended 1981) and the sentencing provisions of § 32-1996(C) (amended 1981) were the correct statutes under which he should have been indicted for possession of dangerous drugs for…”
State v. Hays, 506 P.2d 254 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 7× “’?” A.R.S. § 32-1996, subsec. C reads as follows: “[I]f .”
State v. Tyree, 508 P.2d 335 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 4× “” If confinement is imposed by the trial court pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1996, subsec. C the term that must be imposed is one year to life.”
State v. Lewis, 512 P.2d 9 (Ariz. 1973).
· cites it 3× “The minimum and maximum are provided by the statute and there is no discretion in the trial court to make any sentence other than the one year minimum and maximum of life imprisonment.”
State v. Martinez, 622 P.2d 3 (Ariz. 1980).
· cites it 2× “See A.R.S. §§ 32-1996(0), 36-1002.01-1002.04, and 36-1002.”
State v. McElroy, 625 P.2d 904 (Ariz. 1981).
· cites it 2× “Defendant was found guilty by the court sitting without a jury of the crime of attempted possession of dangerous drugs in violation of A.R.S. §§ 32-1996,13-1001,13-701, 13-801.”
State v. Richards, 518 P.2d 113 (Ariz. 1974).
“32-1970 and § 32-1996 and a sentence of not less than two and one-half years nor more than five years in the Arizona State Prison.”
State v. Robbins, 518 P.2d 107 (Ariz. 1974).
· cites it 2× “First, defendant urges that he was entitled to credit upon his state prison sentence for the time he served in the Yuma County Jail.”
State v. Wadsworth, 505 P.2d 230 (Ariz. 1973).
“Persons convicted of selling or delivering or otherwise disposing of dangerous drugs are to be punished by an imprisonment of one year to life, § 32-1996, subsec. C A.R.S. The second of the Arizona drug statutes is found in Title 36, Chapter 9 (Regulation of Narcotics, Alkalies,…”
State v. Lee, 519 P.2d 56 (Ariz. 1974).
“This is an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of guilt to the crime of sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: methamphetamine, § 32-1970(B), § 32-1996(C), and § 32-1901(9) A.R.S. Defendant received three years’ probation.”
State v. Petralia, 521 P.2d 617 (Ariz. 1974).
“2d 254 (1973), in which we held that § 32-1996(C) A.R.S. is mandatory, and the trial court must sentence a defendant convicted under that statute to a period of from one year to life.”
State v. Stadie, 540 P.2d 668 (Ariz. 1975).
“§ 32-1996(C); unlawful transportation of marijuana, A.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1996(0): 1 case
State v. Martinez, 622 P.2d 3 (Ariz. 1980).
“See A.R.S. §§ 32-1996(0), 36-1002.01-1002.04, and 36-1002.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1996(B): 3 cases
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1996(C): 7 cases
State v. Dungan, 718 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“§ 32-1970 (repealed 1981) in conjunction with the definition of dangerous drugs in § 32-1901(9)(a) (amended 1981) and the sentencing provisions of § 32-1996(C) (amended 1981) were the correct statutes under which he should have been indicted for possession of dangerous drugs for…”
State v. Robbins, 518 P.2d 107 (Ariz. 1974).
“First, defendant urges that he was entitled to credit upon his state prison sentence for the time he served in the Yuma County Jail.”
State v. Lee, 519 P.2d 56 (Ariz. 1974).
“This is an appeal from a jury verdict and judgment of guilt to the crime of sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: methamphetamine, § 32-1970(B), § 32-1996(C), and § 32-1901(9) A.R.S. Defendant received three years’ probation.”
State v. Petralia, 521 P.2d 617 (Ariz. 1974).
“2d 254 (1973), in which we held that § 32-1996(C) A.R.S. is mandatory, and the trial court must sentence a defendant convicted under that statute to a period of from one year to life.”
State v. Hays, 506 P.2d 254 (Ariz. 1973).
“’?” A.R.S. § 32-1996, subsec. C reads as follows: “[I]f .”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1996(c): 1 case
State v. Dungan, 718 P.2d 1010 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
“§ 32-1970 (repealed 1981) in conjunction with the definition of dangerous drugs in § 32-1901(9)(a) (amended 1981) and the sentencing provisions of § 32-1996(C) (amended 1981) were the correct statutes under which he should have been indicted for possession of dangerous drugs for…”
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.