Ariz. Rev. Stat. » Title 8
Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403 (2026)

Plea negotiation

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

A. On request of the victim, the victim has the right to be present and be heard at any proceeding in which a negotiated plea for the juvenile accused of committing the delinquent act against the victim will be presented to the court.

B. The court shall not accept a plea agreement unless:

1. The prosecuting attorney advises the court that before requesting the negotiated plea reasonable efforts were made to confer with the victim pursuant to section 8-399.

2. Reasonable efforts are made to give the victim notice of the plea proceeding pursuant to section 8-390 and to inform the victim that the victim has the right to be present and, if present, to be heard.

3. The prosecuting attorney advises the court that to the best of the prosecutor's knowledge notice requirements of this chapter have been complied with and the prosecutor informs the court of the victim's position, if known, regarding the negotiated plea.  

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases, 1979–1995 · leading case: J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). · cites it 16× “Under the UCCJA the trial court has jurisdiction to determine child custody if: (1) the state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceedings, or had been the home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceedings, and the child is absent…”
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 26× “[7] The UCCJA was designed to bring order to the chaos that had resulted from the application of vaguer doctrines such as comity. It establishes jurisdictional guidelines and limits custody jurisdiction to a state where the child has his or her home, or where there are other…”
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz Cnty., 731 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 7× “§ 25-331(A) and § 8-403(A) (Supp.1985). 4. ) This Court does not decline to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Ledoux v. Aldridge, 841 S.W.2d 793 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 12× “That this Court has jurisdiction to hear this petition under A.R.S. § 8-403(A); [[Image here]] 14. That .”
Iacouzze v. Iacouzze, 672 P.2d 949 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “Here the trial judge decided, on the basis of evidence, that Arizona had jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 8-403 A.3, which states: "A. The superior court of the state of Arizona is vested with jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if any…”
Canty v. Canty, 874 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 8-403(A) (emphasis added). Arizona is the only state with this variation in the text of section 3(A).”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “” A.R.S. § 8-403(A). The first responsibility of the juvenile court was to determine whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under one of these provisions.”
Iacouzze v. Iacouzze, 672 P.2d 949 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 8× “Here the trial judge decided, on the basis of evidence, that Arizona had jurisdiction under A.R.S. § 8-403 A.3, which states: “A. The superior court of the state of Arizona is vested with jurisdiction to make a child custody determination by initial or modification decree if any…”
In Re the Marriage of Hinkston, 653 P.2d 49 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “See generally A.R.S. § 8-403. The legislature has enacted an elaborate interlocking framework of legislation attempting to clarify the question of the superior court's jurisdiction in child custody matters.”
Lofts v. Superior Court, 682 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1984). · cites it 4× “The findings of fact in the order were replete with findings as to respondent’s residency and travels from state to state which could be used to find jurisdiction under the “significant connection with this state” and “substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or…”
Finck v. O'Toole, 880 P.2d 624 (Ariz. 1994). · cites it 4× “See A.R.S. § 8-403. Because no party properly "commenced" a child custody proceeding for Christopher, the trial court did not have authority to award the Fincks visitation with him.”
Both v. Superior Ct., in & for Cty. of Mohave, 590 P.2d 920 (Ariz. 1979). · cites it 5× “” Although it is not clear from the record, it would appear that the respondent judge ordered the exercise of jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-403(A)(2). That section reads: “A.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403(A) — 7 cases
Ledoux v. Aldridge, 841 S.W.2d 793 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). “That this Court has jurisdiction to hear this petition under A.R.S. § 8-403(A); [[Image here]] 14. That .”
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). “Under the UCCJA the trial court has jurisdiction to determine child custody if: (1) the state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceedings, or had been the home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceedings, and the child is absent…”
Canty v. Canty, 874 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “” A.R.S. § 8-403(A) (emphasis added). Arizona is the only state with this variation in the text of section 3(A).”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “” A.R.S. § 8-403(A). The first responsibility of the juvenile court was to determine whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under one of these provisions.”
Leon v. Numkena, 689 P.2d 566 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403(A)(1) — 3 cases
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). “Under the UCCJA the trial court has jurisdiction to determine child custody if: (1) the state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceedings, or had been the home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceedings, and the child is absent…”
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz Cnty., 731 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “§ 25-331(A) and § 8-403(A) (Supp.1985). 4. ) This Court does not decline to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “[7] The UCCJA was designed to bring order to the chaos that had resulted from the application of vaguer doctrines such as comity. It establishes jurisdictional guidelines and limits custody jurisdiction to a state where the child has his or her home, or where there are other…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403(A)(2) — 6 cases
Both v. Superior Ct., in & for Cty. of Mohave, 590 P.2d 920 (Ariz. 1979). “” Although it is not clear from the record, it would appear that the respondent judge ordered the exercise of jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-403(A)(2). That section reads: “A.”
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). “Under the UCCJA the trial court has jurisdiction to determine child custody if: (1) the state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceedings, or had been the home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceedings, and the child is absent…”
Lofts v. Superior Court, 682 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1984). “The findings of fact in the order were replete with findings as to respondent’s residency and travels from state to state which could be used to find jurisdiction under the “significant connection with this state” and “substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or…”
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz Cnty., 731 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “§ 25-331(A) and § 8-403(A) (Supp.1985). 4. ) This Court does not decline to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “[7] The UCCJA was designed to bring order to the chaos that had resulted from the application of vaguer doctrines such as comity. It establishes jurisdictional guidelines and limits custody jurisdiction to a state where the child has his or her home, or where there are other…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403(A)(3) — 4 cases
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). “Under the UCCJA the trial court has jurisdiction to determine child custody if: (1) the state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceedings, or had been the home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceedings, and the child is absent…”
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985). “” A.R.S. § 8-403(A). The first responsibility of the juvenile court was to determine whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the matter under one of these provisions.”
Lofts v. Superior Court, 682 P.2d 412 (Ariz. 1984). “The findings of fact in the order were replete with findings as to respondent’s residency and travels from state to state which could be used to find jurisdiction under the “significant connection with this state” and “substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or…”
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “[7] The UCCJA was designed to bring order to the chaos that had resulted from the application of vaguer doctrines such as comity. It establishes jurisdictional guidelines and limits custody jurisdiction to a state where the child has his or her home, or where there are other…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403(A)(4) — 2 cases
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “[7] The UCCJA was designed to bring order to the chaos that had resulted from the application of vaguer doctrines such as comity. It establishes jurisdictional guidelines and limits custody jurisdiction to a state where the child has his or her home, or where there are other…”
Sonya C. ex rel. Olivas v. Arizona Sch. for the Deaf & Blind, 743 F. Supp. 700 (D. Ariz. 1990).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403(A)(l) — 4 cases
J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995). “Under the UCCJA the trial court has jurisdiction to determine child custody if: (1) the state is the home state of the child at the time of commencement of the proceedings, or had been the home state within 6 months before commencement of the proceedings, and the child is absent…”
Canty v. Canty, 874 P.2d 1000 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “” A.R.S. § 8-403(A) (emphasis added). Arizona is the only state with this variation in the text of section 3(A).”
Martinez v. Superior Court, La Paz Cnty., 731 P.2d 1244 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). “§ 25-331(A) and § 8-403(A) (Supp.1985). 4. ) This Court does not decline to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Jds v. Superior Crt., Cnty. of Maricopa, 893 P.2d 749 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994). “[7] The UCCJA was designed to bring order to the chaos that had resulted from the application of vaguer doctrines such as comity. It establishes jurisdictional guidelines and limits custody jurisdiction to a state where the child has his or her home, or where there are other…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403(AXl) — 1 case
Bryan v. Bryan, 645 P.2d 1267 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1982).
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 8-403(B) — 1 case
Both v. Superior Ct., in & for Cty. of Mohave, 590 P.2d 920 (Ariz. 1979). “” Although it is not clear from the record, it would appear that the respondent judge ordered the exercise of jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to A.R.S. § 8-403(A)(2). That section reads: “A.”
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.