Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 41
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-2403 (2026)

Designated state administering agency for federal Edward Byrne memorial justice assistance grants; report

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

41-2403. Designated state administering agency for federal Edward Byrne memorial justice assistance grants; report

A. The Arizona criminal justice commission is this state's designated state administering agency for the federal Edward Byrne Memorial justice assistance grant that is administered by the United States department of justice, bureau of justice assistance, office of justice programs.

B. The Arizona criminal justice commission shall submit a copy of the federal application for Edward Byrne memorial justice assistance grant monies to the joint legislative budget committee for review at least thirty days before the federal application for the grant is submitted.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1989–1994 · leading case: State v. Wise, 795 P.2d 217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Wise, 795 P.2d 217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 4× “imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses____ A.R.S. § 41-2403(A) (emphasis added). Certainly the legislature knew when it enacted the surcharge statute that any number of statutes in effect provided a ceiling on the amount of a fine that could be imposed.”
State v. Beltran, 825 P.2d 27 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 5× “) § 41-2403 as amended, or whether the trial court should have ordered him to pay a 37% surcharge as required by section 41-2403 when he committed the offense.”
State v. Walker, 768 P.2d 668 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “§ 28-1076, and the statutory penalty assessments imposed, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 41-2403, 36-2219. This sanction is remedial, not punitive, in both purpose and effect, and thus does not subject defendant to the double jeopardy of two criminal trials or two punishments from the…”
State v. Scroggins, 810 P.2d 631 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “We therefore find that the trial court improperly ordered restitution of $2000 and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of restitution in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-804(F).”
State v. Oatley, 847 P.2d 625 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 5× “ISSUE The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the state’s motion to withdraw from the plea agreement after the trial court deviated from the stipulated terms of the agreement by waiving the 40% surcharge mandated by Ariz.”
Taylor v. Sherrill, 802 P.2d 1058 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “Indeed, the court is obligated to “levy penalty assessments pursuant to § 41-2403” in addition to imposing a sanction.”
State v. Leyva, 798 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “§ 13-801(A), the maximum penalty which may be imposed is $150,000, increased by 37 percent pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2403(A). Appellant argues that the application of A.”
Malone v. Superior Court, 889 P.2d 16 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 5× “section 41-2403, Stack and Gusick require that the amount of bail must be the same regardless of any assessment that is included in the bail amount.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-2403(A) — 4 cases
State v. Wise, 795 P.2d 217 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses____ A.R.S. § 41-2403(A) (emphasis added). Certainly the legislature knew when it enacted the surcharge statute that any number of statutes in effect provided a ceiling on the amount of a fine that could be imposed.”
State v. Scroggins, 810 P.2d 631 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991). “We therefore find that the trial court improperly ordered restitution of $2000 and remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of restitution in accordance with A.R.S. § 13-804(F).”
State v. Oatley, 847 P.2d 625 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “ISSUE The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the state’s motion to withdraw from the plea agreement after the trial court deviated from the stipulated terms of the agreement by waiving the 40% surcharge mandated by Ariz.”
State v. Leyva, 798 P.2d 407 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1990). “§ 13-801(A), the maximum penalty which may be imposed is $150,000, increased by 37 percent pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-2403(A). Appellant argues that the application of A.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 41-2403(C) — 1 case
State v. Oatley, 847 P.2d 625 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993). “ISSUE The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the state’s motion to withdraw from the plea agreement after the trial court deviated from the stipulated terms of the agreement by waiving the 40% surcharge mandated by Ariz.”
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.