2004
Report
of the Arizona
Judicial Branch

Final Report for the term of
Chief Justice Charles E. Jones, 2002-2005

Message from
Chief Justice Charles E. Jones

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Charles E. Jones became

Chief Justice of the Arizona
Supreme Court on January 8,
2002. Prior to being elected by
his peers as Chief Justice, he
had served a five-year term as
Vice Chief Justice.
Chief Justice Jones was
appointed to the Arizona
Supreme Court in 1996 by
Governor J. Fife Symington.
He received his undergraduate
degree from Brigham Young
University in 1959 and his law
degree from Stanford Law
School in 1962.
In 1963, Chief Justice Jones
joined the firm of Jennings,
Strouss & Salmon, where
he became a partner and
for many years served as
chairman of the firm’s labor
and employment division,
a position he held until his
appointment to the Arizona
Supreme Court in 1996.
Chief Justice Jones is a
fellow of the American Bar
Foundation, Arizona Bar
Foundation, and the College
of Labor and Employment
lawyers.
He is a member of the
Conference of Chief Justices,
the Committee on FederalState Jurisdiction of the
Judicial Conference of the
United States and chair of the
National Committee on Public
Trust and Confidence in the
Judiciary.
Chief Justice Jones and his
wife, Ann, live in Phoenix,
Arizona. They have seven
children and twenty-five
grandchildren.

O

n behalf of the
Arizona Judicial
Branch, it is my
pleasure to present
our 2004 Annual
Report. This
compendium of
accomplishments
of the third branch
of government
is a testimonial
to the hard work
and professional
commitment of the
thousands of court
officers, employees
and citizen
volunteers who
work assiduously
to provide access
to equal justice and
court service to the
people of Arizona.
Each business day,
these individuals in
all 15 counties and in
93 towns and cities,
within all levels of
the judicial system,
collectively endeavor
to make “Justice for
All” a reality.
On a personal note, I
take this opportunity
to mention that this
will be my final
annual report as
Chief Justice of
Arizona. In June
2005, I will reach the
mandatory retirement
age imposed
by Arizona’s
Constitution.

As I reflect on the
past 10 years as
a member of the
Arizona Supreme
Court and the last
three years as Chief
Justice, I am humbled
knowing what a
privilege it has been
to give public service
and I am equally
pleased at the strides
we have made.
Thanks to all of
my colleagues and
predecessors, our

state judiciary is
ranked one of the best
in the nation. The
citizens of this great
state can be very
proud of its justice
systems.
And I am honored
to have been a small
part and to have
enjoyed the grand
opportunity to serve
publicly during
these final years of a
professional career.

2

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Table of Contents

A MESSAGE FROM THE CHIEF JUSTICE

PROTECTING CHILDREN, FAMILIES AND COMMUNITIES

This annual report is

the final summary of the
Judicial Branch’s activity
under the direction of
Chief Justice Charles
E. Jones. During his
term, the Judiciary has
focused on the five goals
of “Justice for a Better
Arizona.”
This report is organized to
reflect those overall goals,
which are:
• Protecting Children,
Families and
Communities;
• Providing Access to
Swift, Fair Justice;
• Connecting with the
Community;
• Being Accountable; and
• Serving the Public by
Improving the Legal
Profession.

Arizona drug courts program continues to expand .........................................5
Advances made in fiduciary certification program ..........................................6
New tool introduced for assessing risks and needs of juvenile offenders ......6
New assessment tool adopted for adult offenders ...........................................7
Court protective order repository
........................................................7
Probation officer safety program gains national attention ...............................8
Statewide automation system to track adult probationers ...............................9
JOLTS, the next generation
......................................................10
Adult probation supervision assignment and case transfers are fine-tuned ....11
PROVIDING ACCESS TO SWIFT, FAIR JUSTICE
Committee tackles issues in domestic relations and family law rules ...........12
Enhanced training for limited jurisdiction judges ......................................13
Maricopa County family court gets overall review .....................................14
Court begins review of mandatory arbitration process .................................15
Complex litigation court aims to streamline calendars ..................................16
Chief Justice reaches out to Arizona business leaders ...................................16
Committee on Keeping the Record is established .......................................17
Defensive driving program provides alternatives .......................................18
CONNECTING WITH THE COMMUNITY
Taking the financial hardship out of jury service .........................................19
Court takes oral arguments on the road
.................................................19
Public finds the courts through its Web site .................................................20
BEING ACCOUNTABLE
Fines/fees and restitution enforcement program has early success ..............21
Security and emergency planning for the Arizona courts .............................22
Commission on Minorities report on the horizon ..........................................23

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Table of Contents
SERVING THE PUBLIC BY IMPROVING THE LEGAL
PROFESSION
Legal document preparer program regulation established ............................24
Ongoing improvements for the attorney discipline system ...........................24
Attorneys take laptops into admission examinations
...............................24
COURT STATISTICS BY FISCAL YEAR
Statistical Trends/Highlights
.............................................................26
Arizona’s Judiciary Organizational Chart .....................................................27
2004 Case Filings by Court Level ..................................................................28
Arizona Supreme Court ..............................................................................29
Court of Appeals, Division One ...................................................................29
Court of Appeals, Division Two ....................................................................29
Superior Court
.....................................................................................30
Arizona Tax Court
..............................................................................30
Justice of the Peace Courts .............................................................................31
Municipal Courts
.....................................................................................31
Adult Probation
..................................................................................32
Juvenile Court Referrals ...............................................................................32
Juvenile Court Petitions
.........................................................................32
Juvenile Probation/Corrections .....................................................................32

STATEWIDE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARY
Revenue Summary ......................................................................................33
Revenue Received
......................................................................................33
Revenue Generated .......................................................................................33
Restitution
.......................................................................................33
Expenditure Summary
................................................................................34
Funds Expended by Source ..........................................................................34
Funds Expended by Court Level ..................................................................34

Published by the Administrative Office of the Courts of the Supreme Court of
Arizona, 1501 West Washington, Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231.
Photos copyright 2005 Arizona Supreme Court and its licensors. All rights reserved.
Photos of Chief Justice Jones by John Beckett., Beckett & Beckett Photography.

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Protecting Children, Families
and Communities
Courts provide a fair and impartial forum for the resolution

“We believe that
improved methods
by which to address
family law issues
can and should play
a role in breaking
cycles of violence
and providing
families with an
unbiased venue
for the resolution
of family
controversy.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
2002 State of the
Judiciary

of disputes. They ensure that those who violate laws are
held accountable and serve to limit the arbitrary use of
governmental power. They protect those in need due to age
or infirmity from physical or financial harm. Arizona courts
are an essential component of a justice system that exists,
in substantial part, to protect children, families, and the
communities in which we live.

Arizona drug courts program
continues to expand
Drug Court is a voluntary court-supervised program for nonviolent
offenders focused on substance abuse rehabilitation and community
involvement. The target population is felony and misdemeanor offenders
with charges involving possession or acquisition of marijuana, narcotics,
dangerous drugs or drug paraphernalia. The target population also includes
DUI offenders.
The program includes a comprehensive treatment program of counseling,
recovery support groups, urinalysis, and a victim impact panel.
The goal of the Drug Court Program, which exists with the aid of Federal
funding, is to help participants achieve total abstinence from drugs and
alcohol. Arizona has 26 drug court teams (8 adult, 12 juvenile, 3 family
and 3 DUI). The counties where the drug courts exit include: Cochise,
Coconino, Gila, Maricopa, Pima, Yavapai and Yuma.
Court professionals gathered in September for the 4th Annual Arizona
Drug Court Conference where they discussed the state of the programs
in Arizona and heard presentations from national speakers who shared
information about drug court programs around the country.
The conference was presented by The Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC), The Governor’s Division for Substance Abuse Policy,
The University of Arizona, Applied Behavioral Health, Pacific Southwest
Addiction Technology Transfer Center, and The Parents Commission
on Drug Education and Prevention in cooperation with the Arizona
Association of Drug Court Professionals (AADCP). Other collaborators
for the 2004 conference included The National Association of Drug Court
Professionals (NADCP) and National Drug Court Institute (NDCI).
In addition to providing a venue for drug court professionals to share and
discuss issues affecting their jobs, the fourth annual conference also

5

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Juvenile Probation:
Counting on Success
From 1998 to 2003:
• Juveniles arrested
declined by 18%
• Juveniles arrested for
violent crimes declined by
24%
• Juveniles committed to
the Department of Juvenile
Corrections declined by
45%
• Juveniles processed in
the Adult Courts declined
by 49%
In 2004:
• 74% of juveniles placed
on probation successfully
completed their terms
• 88% of on probation
were enrolled and attended
school, involved in
vocational programs or were
employed

Protecting Children, Families and Communities
represented a key forum for updates and discussions on the status of
Arizona’s Drug and DUI Courts as well as diversion programs. It focused
on increasing the awareness of the drug courts and the positive outcomes
being realized both nationally and locally.
Arizona Drug Court/DUI programs boast 2,942 successful graduates as
of December 31, 2004, with approximately 1,405 individuals currently
participating in programs.

Advances made in
fiduciary certification program
Arizona enacted the first program in the nation designed to protect seniors
and incapacitated persons who rely on public fiduciaries to manage their
finances.
The Arizona Fiduciary Program was first implemented in 1998, following
authorization and funding by Arizona’s Legislature. The establishment of
the program came after some highly publicized cases of mismanagement
and financial exploitation of incapacitated and protected persons by
fiduciaries. The Arizona Fiduciary Program protects the public by
certifying individuals who manage the financial and personal affairs
of incapacitated and vulnerable individuals, and by taking appropriate
disciplinary action when a fiduciary fails to perform their duties
competently or abuses their position of authority and trust.
Although the vast majority of fiduciaries perform their duties competently
and ethically, there have been cases of fiduciaries and attorneys being
convicted of financial exploitation involving millions of dollars. These
cases of abuse led to Chief Justice Jones appointing a Fiduciary Advisory
Committee to review the accounting and case management practices of
fiduciaries and to provide recommendations on improvements.
The Fiduciary Certification Program has continued moving forward
with the implementation of a number of measures designed to ensure the
protection of Arizona’s elderly, incapacitated and vulnerable persons.
The compliance audit review process for all certified fiduciaries was
implemented in March 2003, and to date, audits of six fiduciaries, both
public offices and private businesses have been completed.
Software to assist the courts in carrying out oversight of fiduciaries has
been developed and implemented throughout the state. Specialized
training on probate issues have been held at the annual judicial
conferences.

New tool introduced for assessing
risks and needs of juvenile offenders
Juvenile probation officers may now make more in-depth assessments
of juvenile offenders with the expanded version of the Risk-Needs
Assessment Tool. This tool assists the officer in the development of an
individualized case plan that addresses the needs of juveniles under

6

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

“The continuing
hard work of our
judges and the staffs
involved with our
Arizona drug courts
are leading the way
for a transition
from the traditional
role of courts
to a community
therapeutic role.
Their early impact
and successes
on offenders and
their families
show tremendous
promise.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
in a speech to the
Arizona Judicial
Conference

Protecting Children, Families and Communities
the supervision of the juvenile court while ensuring juvenile offender
accountability to victims and communities.
Using this tool, probation officers assess risks and prioritize potential
needs. Assessments are made regarding parenting issues, health issues,
alcohol and over-the-counter drug abuse, illegal or prescription drug
abuse, school issues, education functioning, truancy, behavior and mental
health issues, severity of runaway behavior, and relationship with family.
The tool, which is used statewide, also includes a “strengths” assessment
that identifies and reinforces positive behavior in juveniles and their
families.
The assessments of the Risk-Needs Tool were implemented on the
Juvenile On-Line Tracking System (JOLTS), further expanding JOLTS’
utility as a case management tool.

New assessment tool
adopted for adult offenders
Adult probation officers received a new tool increasing their ability
to make more in-depth assessments of adult offenders. Having the
information necessary to assess an offender’s risk to re-offend and need
for rehabilitative services is the cornerstone of contemporary correctional
practice. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), seeking to
standardize assessment procedures and create a statewide uniform
screening instrument, implemented the Offender Screening Tool (OST).
Using the OST, probation officers are able to identify offenders at greatest
risk for re-offending and develop a case plan that addresses the needs
of those offenders under the supervision of the superior court. The
automated nature of the OST also makes it useful in determining the
allocation of resources and services to ensure they are being utilized on the
appropriate offenders.
Prior to the adoption of the OST, considerable differences existed across
the state in the procedures and tools used by adult probation departments
to assess offenders. Research conducted to assess the validity of the
OST for statewide application determined that it is an effective tool for
assessing adult offenders throughout Arizona. The OST thus became
the approved assessment tool for all of Arizona’s adult probation
departments. A curriculum was developed and statewide training and OST
implementation began in May 2004.

Court Protective Order Repository
helps officers in the field
Using Federal and state grants, the Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) has continued to develop a statewide database of protective orders,
known as the Court Protective Order Repository (CPOR). This database is

7

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Protecting Children, Families and Communities
intended to increase availability of protection order information to the law
enforcement community and enhance the protection afforded victims of
domestic violence in Arizona.
Currently, the only other electronic record of protective orders issued in
Arizona outside the county in which they were issued, is the National
Crime Information (NCIC) database, which provides nationwide criminal
records information to law enforcement agencies.
Unfortunately, the NCIC’s data requirements are so stringent that
historically a small of all orders issued in Arizona are accepted by NCIC.
The new registry is greatly expanding the number of protection orders
available electronically to law enforcement in Arizona. The absence of
easily accessible and up-to-date protective order information can cause
difficulties for law enforcement agencies, including the courts, and
domestic violence victims. To avoid their abusers, victims often move out
of the county or state in which they originally obtained their protective
orders. They may later encounter problems when local law enforcement
is unable to verify the existence of the protection order. The CPOR will
provide a single, readily accessible source of information for determining
whether a protective order is in effect.
During a 31⁄2-month period at the end of 2004, in Coconino County alone
law officers in the field made 36,681 queries for protective orders.

Probation officer safety program
gains national attention
In March 2001, then Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket established an ad hoc
committee to study Probation Officer Safety and Training issues in the
probation departments in Arizona.
That action led to the establishment of an officer safety program in
Arizona that has gained national attention and recognition as a model for
probation, parole, and community corrections agencies across the country.
In December 2001, the Ad Hoc Committee presented a final report to the
AJC, which adopted these six recommendations to:
(1) clarify the duties of juvenile officers pertaining to peace officer status;
(2) give all officers the option of requesting authorization to be armed
if they satisfactorily complete required training and meet prerequisite
criteria;
(3) authorize chief probation officers and juvenile court directors to
require arming of officers in certain positions who are performing
specified duties;
(4) adopt a Use of Force administrative code;
(5) establish a standardized officer safety program which includes
mandatory officer safety and safety equipment training, as well as firearms
standards and training; and
(6) establish statewide hiring standards.

8

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

“The experience
of 9/11 (and
subsequent
investigations)
demonstrated
painfully that
information needs
to be available
to the right people,
at the right time,
both in the state and
federal sectors.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
2002 State of the
Judiciary

Protecting Children, Families and Communities
In April 2002, the Committee on Probation Education (COPE) began
developing the training curriculum which focused on new officer
orientation, the expansion of officer safety training at the certification
academy and the development of defensive tactics and firearms training.
Defensive tactics and firearms training programs were implemented using
trained volunteer instructors. By the end of 2004, the Administrative
Office of the Courts (AOC) had sponsored seven regional defensive tactics
instructors’ training sessions resulting in the qualification of 131 defensive
tactics instructors. Those instructors held 105 defensive tactics training
academies and certified 1,547 officers in defensive tactics. Three firearms
instructors training sessions were held, and 62 firearms instructors became
qualified. Twenty-seven firearms training academies have been held, with
340 officers being qualified to carry a firearm.

Statewide automation system
designed to track adult probationers
In an effort to reduce the time probation officers spend on paperwork and
enable them to increase their time with offenders, the courts have adopted
a automated system that gives adult probation departments a greater ability
to share information throughout the state.
The Adult Probation Enterprise Tracking System (APETS) began in 1999
as a collaboration between the adult probation departments in Maricopa
and Pima counties and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).
By 2004, approximately 135,000 client records and more than 3.6 million
contact records have been housed in the production database maintained
by the AOC.
The court has a strong commitment to the automation of adult probation
despite the lack of a legislatively appropriated dedicated funding source
and APETS is expected to be fully implemented statewide by the end of
FY 2007.
By the end of FY 2006, it is estimated that approximately 97 percent of the
state’s probation population will be included in APETS.
The APETS application was fully implemented by the Maricopa County
Adult Probation Department (APD) in March 2000. In October 2004,
Yuma County APD completed its implementation of APETS. La Paz
County APD followed suit with a full department implementation in
December 2004. Pima County is currently in a planning phase and expects
to implement APETS in the spring of 2005.
Unlike any other existing enterprise court application in Arizona, APETS
uses a single database structure. A single database allows adult probation
departments to share probationer information throughout the state and has
the unique ability to transfer cases electronically between counties with a
click of a button. This transfer functionality as well as a pre-trial tracking
module, county specific details for table structures and statewide adult
assessments were programmed into APETS over the past two years in
order to make it ready for multi-county use and rollout.

9

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Protecting Children, Families and Communities
For the rural counties, APETS replaces their existing case tracking
systems, the Probation Information Management System (PIMS). They
will be able to maintain important client data from that system, which
many counties have been using for more than a decade.
APETS provides Arizona with an automation system that will eventually
benefit other public safety professionals in the state and nationwide.
The APETS project team has been working on an integration project
with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) called Convicted Persons
on Supervised Release (CPSR). When implemented, APETS will capture
CPSR data elements in a data warehouse and transmit the information to
the Arizona Crime Information Center (ACIC), which will then be
promoted to the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). This data
feed will help eliminate some redundant data entries by adult probation
staff across the state into the current DPS system.
APETS is proving to be a useful tool for probation staff statewide. In
addition to assisting probation officers in the field, it helps support staff
managing probation case file information and the management of teams in
the counties and at the AOC. As APETS continues to be rolled out across
the state, the database will allow for improved tracking and oversight of
Arizona probationers.

The juvenile tracking system, JOLTS,
moves into the next generation
2003 was the 10th anniversary of the full statewide implementation of
the Juvenile Online Tracking System. The AOC, juvenile courts, the
legislature, executive branch, and community organizations have come to
rely on the wealth and quality of the JOLTS data. The annual publication,
Juvenile’s Processed in the Arizona Court System provides the public an
opportunity for readily accessible statistical information about the juvenile
courts and the juveniles served and held accountable. Over the past three
years there has been a significant increase in the quality and quantity of
statistical data available on JOLTS.
Although JOLTS has served the state well, it is based on antiquated
technology that cannot fully fulfill the data sharing needs of today’s
juvenile courts.
In 2004, parallel efforts to reengineer and upgrade JOLTS were launched
by Maricopa County (eJOLTS) and by a partnership of the AOC, Pima
County, and the Rural Counties (JOLTSaz). In April 2004, the JOLTSaz
project plan was reviewed and approved, with accolades, by the State’s
Information Technology Advisory Commission. Both eJOLTS and
JOLTSaz are currently in development.

10

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Protecting Children, Families and Communities

Adult probation supervision
assignment, case transfers are fine-tuned
Work has begun on standardizing the process for transferring adult
probation cases to other counties within Arizona for courtesy supervision.
A statewide workgroup was established in early 2004 and given the task of
developing a policy and procedure manual for intercounty transfers.
As the project progressed the workgroup further identified the need to
amend the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 27 Probation and
Probation Revocation, regarding the actual case transfer. The workgroup
completed the Rule 27 Petition proposal to clarify existing language and
expand transfer authority beyond courtesy supervision. Clarification is
expected to be addressed in early 2005.

11

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Providing Access to
Swift, Fair Justice
Our judicial system is predicated on the belief that all

“Family cases
continue to be among
the most difficult and
emotionally-taxing
matter handled in
our courts. There is
a growing awareness
across the country
and here in Arizona
that a better court
focus is one that is
sensitive to the needs
and circumstances of
the whole family.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
in a speech to the
Arizona Judicial
Conference

citizens coming before the courts are entitled to equal justice,
regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, age, or economic
circumstance. Courts must resolve cases swiftly and fairly.
Courts must ensure that litigants and victims fully understand
their rights and that those rights are protected. Courts must
provide meaningful access to all, ensuring that no litigant is
denied justice due to the lack of counsel or the inability to
understand legal proceedings.

Committee tackles domestic relations
and family law rules issues
The Committee on the Rules of Procedure in Domestic Relations Cases
was created in 2003 with the mission to establish a comprehensive,
statewide set of rules of procedure for domestic relations/family law cases
aimed at achieving fair, effective, uniform and timely resolution of family
disputes, using non-adversarial, problem-solving means to the extent
possible and appropriate.
The committee is nearing completion of the first draft of the Arizona Rules
of Family Law Procedure (ARFLP) and is on track to submit a report
of its findings and recommendations and the rules for approval to the
Committee on Superior Courts (COSC) in February 2005 and the Arizona
Judicial Council (AJC) in March 2005. If the Rules are approved by AJC,
the Committee will submit the Rules for approval during the Supreme
Court’s Rules Agenda in June 2005 and circulate them for public comment
through August 2005. The domestic relations rules committee hopes to
have the rules of procedure effective on January 1, 2006.
The committee is comprised of 16 members who are judges, attorneys,
and court personnel from around the state. They have reviewed current
statewide and local rules of procedure, evidence, and alternative dispute
resolution applicable in family law cases and will propose substitute or
additional rules as needed for the Arizona Rules of Family Law Procedure.
The committee also has reviewed rules of procedure from other states in
its endeavor to identify areas in which current rules impede the fair and
efficient disposition of domestic relations cases.
The committee has sought public input and recommendations from
stakeholders prior to submitting the ARFLP for approval and has
presented the ARFLP to various family law organizations and bar
associations. The work is updated on the committee’s Web site at http:
//www.supreme.state.az.us/drrc.

12

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

“We have
implemented
a more
comprehensive
education and
training curriculum
for new judges
and have added a
successful testing
component. Class
members took their
studies seriously.
Everyone worked
and the results
showed. My goal
is to provide every
new judge, law
trained or not,
with the ability to
succeed.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
2003 State of the
Judiciary

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice

Enhanced training for judges
in limited jurisdiction courts
Two years ago, a project began to improve and enhance training for limited
jurisdiction judges. The project included revising the Limited Jurisdiction
New Judge Orientation, developing computer-based training for limited
jurisdiction judges, and developing additional training programs.
In 2002, the Limited Jurisdiction New Judge Orientation (NJO) program
was revised, expanding the program and incorporating what had been
pre-NJO and a post-NJO legal institute for nonlawyer judges. An
administrative order established a standing Limited New Judge Orientation
Committee comprised of justices of the peace, municipal court judges, and
court administrators.
The program has continuously been improved since then. Lesson plans
have been revised, a study guide was created to assist judges in learning
the materials, and aspects of the curriculum were adjusted to assess
knowledge. New Judge Orientation was expanded to three weeks: two in
January and one in April. The program also was divided into educational
units: Judicial Foundation; Civil; Criminal and Traffic; and Administrative
Skills. Learning labs were added for Civil and Criminal proceedings and
the judges now spend half a day on each area, practicing the skills needed
to conduct hearings in the courtroom.
A second phase of enhanced training was put into place with the
development of computer-based training for the judges. These self-paced
lessons, which provide training prior to New Judge Orientation, offer more
detailed and enhanced training in some areas. To date computer-based
training has been developed to cover Legal Research; Legal Terminology;
Initial Appearances, Arraignments and Guilty Pleas; The Arizona Court
System and Restitution. Programs are being developed to cover Victims’
Rights and Search and Seizure.
The third phase of enhanced training began in December 2004 with the
kickoff course for the Judicial Training Academy. The first course, “FED
and Beyond,” is an in-depth training program for new and experienced
judges covering all aspects of Forcible Entry and Detainer proceedings.
Additional courses will be added to cover other civil and criminal
proceedings.
Another enhancement created for limited jurisdiction judges was the
addition of links in the on-line judicial bench books and reference manuals
to citation information. When using the on-line books, judges can click
on citations to rules, statutes and cases to see the actual wording. This is a
benefit especially for judges who do not have legal research accounts with
a legal research provider.
All the enhanced training opportunities have been designed to help new
and experienced limited jurisdiction judges gain the skills necessary and
have access to the resources needed to ensure quality justice and due
process for all who appear in their courts.

13

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice

Family court in Maricopa County
gets overall, independent review
In February 2004, the Supreme Court commissioned an independent study
of the overall performance of the Family Court Department of the Superior
Court in Maricopa County. The study was designed to identify possible
causes and solutions for delays in resolving divorce, child custody, child
support, and other family law cases.
A consultant was hired for this project who gathered data for several
months and surveyed court staff, judges, lawyers, and litigants before
issuing a final report on August 18, 2004. The report is available the
Supreme Court’s Web site at: http://www.supreme.state.az.us/nav2/
083004FamCourtReport.pdf
Among its findings, the report acknowledges that the Family Court
Department has many strengths and innovative programs in place and
recommends several approaches to improve time-to-disposition rates for
family law cases.
Recommendations for action by the Supreme Court include:
• Adopt authoritative distinctions between legal information and
legal advice for the guidance of court staff.
• Train the Judicial Selection Commission regarding judicial
needs of the Family Court Department.
• Review current disposition time standards and impose interim
standards for family cases to be in effect for the next two years.
• Amend Civil Rule of Procedure 38.1 to eliminate the practice
of maintaining active and inactive civil calendars.
Recommendations for action by the Superior Court in Maricopa County
include the following:
• Create a standard procedure for early intervention in all family
cases conducted by both staff and judges, focused on resolution
of most cases on their first appearance in court, and provide
a “single, simple process” for initial processing of all family
matters.
• Improve the use of ancillary services by referring litigants to
those most appropriate to their cases.
• Aggressively manage all cases not resolved at the first court
hearing.
• Create judge/staff teams to replace the ancillary services units.
• Expand the amount of one-on-one service provided to selfrepresented parties in the Self Service Center, in the new judge/
staff teams, and in the department as a whole.
• Create a governance structure for the department.
• Lessen the impact of the judicial rotation period for judges in the
department, including, if necessary, extending the rotation period.

14

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
Provide case management training for all newly appointed Family
Court Department judges.
Provide on-going case management training for case managers.
Eliminate paper case files for family cases filed since 2002.
Reassess the role of attorney case managers.

•
•
•
•

Judge Norman Davis, Presiding Judge of the Family Court Department in
Maricopa County, presented a Plan of Enhancement in October 2004 to the
Arizona Judicial Council, which approved it. The plan includes:
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•

Early judicial intervention, where the parties meet with a judge
early on in the process to settle as many issues as possible.
A process has been originated in the downtown court which
allows litigants to choose their own default hearing date.
A uniform case management system is being implemented.
The court is converting the Self Service Center into a Web-based
system which offers online dissolution forms.
Parties will go to post-modification court one day and hopefully
reach agreement and enter orders on the same day. If there is
dispute on some issues, parties may go right into the courtroom
and a judge for a judicial decision on those unresolved issues.
Judge Davis has formed a committee to research the issue of
judge rotation.
Development of a child support arrearage calculator.
Data cleanup of old Order of Protection cases has begun; cases
requiring no further action were moved off the open, active
roster. A similar approach is underway with legal separation
cases and paternity cases which have no current issues pending.

Full implementation of the Plan of Enhancement is expected by August 20,
2005; full compliance with the Plan of Enhancement, as well as interim
time to disposition standards contained in the Plan, is required by August
20, 2006.

Court begins to review
mandatory arbitration process
Recognizing the need to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of
Arizona’s mandatory arbitration process as an alternative dispute resolution
tool, the Supreme Court contracted with researchers from Arizona State
University’s College of Law Lodestar Dispute Resolution Program to
conduct a study which began in 2004.
The current system, which has been in place for over a decade, requires
cases under a specific jurisdictional limit to proceed through non-binding
arbitration. This court-annexed arbitration system was designed to relieve
court congestion and to provide litigants a more efficient mechanism for
resolving lawsuits in which the amount in controversy might not justify the
costs associated with traditional litigation.

15

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
The study will provide a better understanding of whether the current
arbitration system expedites the resolution process, reduces costs for
litigants and the courts, and provides greater user satisfaction.
At the completion of the study, the researchers will present the findings and
recommendations to the Supreme Court, the Arizona Judicial Council, the
State Bar Board of Governors as well as other Supreme Court committees.

Complex litigation court
aims to streamline calendars
A committee established by Chief Justice Charles E. Jones in 2001
examined ways to improve the manner in which complex civil cases are
handled in Arizona courts. The committee concluded that a more efficient
and effective way to adjudicate complex cases would be to establish
a separate complex civil litigation department governed by rules of
procedure crafted to handle these cases.
Additionally, the committee concluded that removing complex cases from
the overall mix will allow the civil bench to devote more resources to the
large volume of civil cases.
In January 2003, Chief Justice Jones authorized the establishment of a
complex civil litigation pilot program in the Superior Court in Maricopa
County.
The foundation for successful processing of complex litigation is active
hands-on management by the judge. To develop this skill, the three judges
selected for the pilot program have received special training in
case management techniques as well as substantive law areas common
to complex cases. An important feature of the program is that one judge
oversees all aspects of a case and stays with the case until its resolution.
Case management is designed to encourage early resolution of cases or
parts of cases.
Participants in the program file their pleadings and motions electronically.
They are also encouraged to use electronic communication, storage, and
transmission of evidence. The electronic documents e-filed and e-served in
the pilot program to date are estimated to equal a stack of paper as tall as a
14-story building. An evaluation of the pilot program will be submitted to
the Supreme Court in December 2006.

Chief Justice reaches out
to Arizona business leaders
In 2003, Chief Justice Charles E. Jones assembled a statewide group of
business representatives to serve as a resource and a sounding board.
Chief Justice Jones, who serves on the National Business Roundtable,
decided the time was opportune for a similar dialogue within Arizona with

16

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
the business leaders. The national group, which is hosted by the National
Center for the Courts (NCSC), gathers general counsels from the nation’s
Fortune 500 companies and the states’ chief justices for discussions on
how to improve the civil litigation systems.
Established under the auspices of the Supreme Court’s Arizona Judicial
Council, the Arizona Business Roundtable provides the Court and the
Arizona business community an opportunity to discuss current issues
affecting the Arizona judicial system and the people it serves.
Membership of the Roundtable, which meets at least once annually,
includes the general counsels of companies across the state, representing
a broad and diverse cross-section of Arizona’s business community and
judicial and legal community representatives.
The mission statement for the Roundtable recognizes that “the court and
business community share common interests and concerns about the
efficient, equitable, and timely administration within the justice system.
The Roundtable will provide both the court and the business community a
forum in which to identify and discuss improvements to the administration
of justice, promote better understanding of problems and opportunities, and
facilitate discussion of solutions and strategies.”
Although an increasing amount of court time and resources are being
devoted to the state’s criminal offenders, civil litigation remains a critical
part of resolving conflicts within the world of business and commerce.

Committee on Keeping
The Record is established
Making and preserving an accurate record of court proceedings is a core
function of the court system. The Committee on Keeping the Record
was established by Chief Justice Jones to evaluate a comprehensive list
of issues relating to how courts should address the chronic shortage of
stenographic court reporters without compromising the provision of swift,
fair justice.
The Committee has focused on three primary topics: electronic alternatives
for creating and preserving the verbatim record, effective utilization of
court reporters and transcription services, and evaluating the rules and
statutes that prohibit courts from using mechanical recording equipment as
a replacement for traditional stenographic reporters.
The Committee is expected to issue its findings and recommendations by
December 2005. The Committee’s Interim Report is available online at:
www.supreme.state.az.us/ktr.

17

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice

Defensive driving program
provides alternatives
Each year, more than 220,000 eligible drivers, those who have received
a traffic violation and wish to have it dismissed through completion of
a class, choose the option of attending defensive driving school. The
Defensive Driving Program of the Administrative Office of the Courts
certifies and oversees the defensive driving schools and instructors,
regularly monitoring the defensive driving classes and performing
operational reviews of the schools. The program is also responsible for
handling any complaints alleging misconduct by a defensive driving
instructor or school and can take appropriate disciplinary action.
To meet the changing needs of the citizens and courts of Arizona, the
Supreme Court in 2003 adopted “alternative delivery methods” (ADM), to
allow for delivery of course material in nontraditional formats, including,
for example, over the Internet. Historically, the program has required inclass attendance and a live instructor. There are now five schools certified
to provide alternative delivery classes to Arizona students. To obtain
certification for an alternative delivery method course, a school must
demonstrate that it can meet the Defensive Driving Program standards,
including verification of students’ identification, participation, and having
met the minimum class time and instruction requirements.

18

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Connecting with
the Community
Courts exist to serve the public and cannot serve effectively

if meaningful communication with the community does
not exist. This strategic initiative, Connecting with the
Community, focuses on enhancing judicial communication
with the public and the other branches of government, as well
as fostering public understanding of the important role of the
judiciary in our democracy.

“We are called upon
simply to resolve
controversy, to
give meaning to the
law, calling on the
best of our abilities to
provide justice, equity,
and balance among
all the competing
interests. To do so,
we depend on the trust
and confidence of the
people –– the same
people that gave us our
Constitution, and the
same people that today,
offer sustaining hope
for the perpetuation of
our inspired form of
government.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
Second Annual
State of the Judiciary

Taking the financial hardship
out of jury service
Beginning in July 2004, Arizona became the first state in the nation to
replace lost wages of jurors who serve on longer trials. The Arizona
Lengthy Trial Fund, supported by a $15 filing fee imposed on certain civil
case filings, reimburses jurors who lose their regular income while they
serve as jurors.
Eligible jurors must serve more than 10 days to qualify. Compensation is
capped at $100 per day for Day 4 through Day 10, and $300 per day for
Days 11 and up. Unemployed or retired jurors serving on longer trials are
also eligible for $40 per day in jury pay. This is a substantial increase over
the $12 per day which all jurors are paid customarily.
The goal of this program is to eliminate the financial hardship that so often
accompanies jury service, and thereby enable a greater cross-section of the
community to serve on longer civil and criminal trials.
In the period July through December 2004, the fund paid out over $37,000
in wage replacement to 41 jurors who served in 10 cases. The average
payment from the fund for each juror was $70 per day. The average length
of these longer jury trials was 24 days in criminal cases and 13 days in
civil cases.

The Court takes oral arguments on the
road, fields questions from the public

Four times a year, the Arizona Supreme Court leaves its chambers and
court room on the State Capitol mall and travels around the state to offer
students and community residents an opportunity to personally attend an
Oral Argument session before the High Court.
In the spring of 2004, the Court traveled to the College of Law at Arizona
State University where the Justices heard oral arguments on two pending
cases. In the fall, the court traveled to the College of Law at the University
of Arizona in Tucson for a similar event in front of an audience of
primarily law students.

19

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

“We in Arizona’s
judiciary reach
into nearly every
community, and
perform jobs that
are essential to the
delivery of justice
and the protection of
our citizens.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
speaking to the Arizona
Judicial Conference

Connecting with the Community
In addition to visiting the law schools, the Court and its staff complete
with a field kit that enables the courtroom to be mobile, travel two other
times to small communities in the state.
This program is an opportunity for the Court to reach out to and be seen
by the people of the state at the grassroots level. This outreach often
becomes more dramatic in the rural areas of the state where neither
students nor residents have many opportunities to travel to the state
capital or to become familiar with Arizona’s judiciary.
The Court also conducted a “community town hall” following oral
arguments to answer general questions from audience members.
Hundreds of people turned out to each event for the unique opportunity to
speak directly with the Justices on topics of interest.
The Court also sets aside time to meet with members of the community
when they visit and informal briefings and discussions are held with
representatives from the business community, elected leadership, church
and synagogue clergy and local educators and their students.

Public access drives customers
to the courts through the Web site
The Arizona Judicial Branch provided an impressive display
of online information for the public and legal community in 2004.
With more than 25 million hits logged by users this past year, the court’s
Web site provided valuable information to 489,721 visitors, who viewed
an average of 17,212 web pages per day.
A total of 6,299,916 Web pages were viewed/downloaded, with the
most popular pages being the courts’ online Public Access to Court
Information and online Child Support Calculator. Public Access to Court
Information had 1,568,468 visitor sessions conducted by 295,279 visitors
who viewed 25,213,592 pages of both civil and criminal case records.
The Child Support Calculator did brisk business as it generated 212,132
calculations for 74,986 visitors which resulted in 6,884,485 hits on Child
Support Calculator documents with only 0.01 percent page error. These
visits came from 74,986 separate computer users. And visitors were able
to perform successful child support calculations nearly 4.8 million times.
Visit the Arizona Judicial Branch Web site at www.supreme.s
tate.az.us/ The Public Access to Court Information is at http:
//www.supreme.state.az.us/publicaccess/default.htm. And the
Arizona Child Support Guidelines Calculator can be found at
www.supreme.state.az.us/childsup/

20

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Being Accountable
The judiciary, like the executive and legislative branches of

government, must be accountable to the public. This strategic
initiative, Being Accountable, focuses on the obligation
of the judiciary to ensure staff at all levels are competent,
professional, and customer service-oriented.

“The Arizona
Judiciary is
attempting to help the
state budget shortfall
through a heightened
enforcement effort
to collect unpaid
court fines and
fees. Known
as the F.A.R.E.
program, for fines/
fees and restitution
enforcement builds on
the past success of an
effort begun in 1988.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
speaking to members of
the Phoenix Chamber of
Commerce

Fines/Fees and restitution enforcement,
(FARE) program, has early success
The Fines/Fees and Restitution Enforcement (FARE) Program is a
statewide initiative of the judicial branch with the goals of compliance
with and respect for court orders and the law, enhanced customer service,
increased revenues, consistency and uniformity in case processing, and
efficiencies in the collections process.
The program is a public/private partnership involving the courts,
other governmental entities, including the Motor Vehicle Division and
Department of Revenue, and a private vendor. Following a competitive
procurement process, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc. (ACS) was
chosen as the private vendor to work with the courts on this program.
FARE was officially launched by Chief Justice Charles E. Jones on July
9, 2003, at a meeting with the “pioneer courts.” The pioneer courts consist
of seven courts that volunteered to pilot the program: Chandler Municipal
Court, Phoenix Municipal Court, Tucson Municipal Court, Show Low
Municipal Court, Central Phoenix Justice of the Peace Court, East Phoenix
#1 Justice of the Peace Court, and West Phoenix Justice of the Peace
Court.
Since that kickoff meeting, judges and court administrators from the
pioneer courts have met regularly with Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC) and ACS staff to work through the details of implementing the
program in their courts.
Collection efforts to date have been on ease of access to pay court
orders, fines, and assessments of delinquent cases. In the first 18 months
of operation, the backlog cases that have been brought into special
collections by Tucson, Show Low, Flagstaff and Wickenburg Municipal
Courts, the Maricopa County Justice Courts, Superior Court, Clerk of
Court and Juvenile probation and all limited jurisdiction courts in Navajo
County have generated over $4.5 million.
Bilingual Web-based and telephone credit card payment began in
2004. Since inception of these services, more than $325,000 has been
collected over the Web and IVR systems. Out-of-state defendants make
approximately 22 percent of the payments.

21

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Being Accountable
In mid-August 2004, the Traffic Ticket Enforcement Assistance Program
(TTEAP) became available. TTEAP allows the Motor Vehicle Division,
on instruction from the court, to place a hold on a vehicle registration
renewal when there are more than $200 in outstanding court obligations
for civil or criminal traffic violations or there is a failure to appear on
a criminal traffic citation. TTEAP will only be used after the defendant
has received several notices and has had opportunity to comply with the
court order. This means they can pay in full or they can go to court and
request time to pay and establish an installment plan to accommodate
their particular situation. Flagstaff and Tucson Municipal Courts (our
first opportunity for cross-court name matching) are the first courts to
send cases to TTEAP. After four months, over 13,200 registration holds
have been placed and 685 holds have been released following payment.
The full FARE model is on track to be implemented in the City of
Phoenix Municipal Court in March 2005. This will provide a full range
of collection and order enforcement services to the court which include
a reminder notice, two delinquency notices, Web and IVR systems, skip
tracing, referral to TTEAP and the Tax Intercept Program and credit
bureau reporting. Overall the local court will retain responsibility for
“front end” and “back end” case processing while the “middle” (order
enforcement and collection activities) will be performed by ACS. Most
importantly the court retains control over the entire process.

Security and emergency planning
for the Arizona court system
The day-to-day safe operation of the courts and their continued operation
following a natural or man-made disaster are essential to our democratic
society. However, a safe court environment must be provided in a manner
that preserves the rights of citizens and guarantees their access to the
courts.
Fortunately, the Arizona court system has avoided significant long term
disruption of its operations from either natural disasters or intentionally
inflicted harm. Nevertheless, it has witnessed the potential for natural
disaster from uncontrolled wildfires. In particular, the disastrous RodeoChediski fire during 2002 and some lesser blazes during more recent
fire seasons highlighted the vulnerability of Arizona’s courts to possible
disruption. The Rodeo-Chediski fire, in particular, provided valuable
lessons about what happens when large rural areas and towns are
evacuated, courts are closed and court business disrupted. In an effort
to leverage the experience of managing through those emergencies, the
Arizona Supreme Court has taken steps to prepare for the next emergency.

22

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Being Accountable
Chief Justice Charles E. Jones issued Administrative Order 2003-21
creating the Court Security and Emergency Preparedness Committee,
which was charged with developing recommendations and guidelines for
security, emergency preparedness and contingency planning and an interim
emergency plan to deal with summer fire emergencies. The committee
submitted its emergency plan as requested and its full report Preparing for
the Unthinkable. The report recommends that local courts assume
responsibility for developing their emergency plans using local resources,
and that each local plan meet minimum basic requirements, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•

a designated chain-of-command/authority,
a designated emergency response team,
a communication plan for critical personnel,
a designated alternative facility,
a plan for training/testing/disseminating the plan, and
an evacuation plan.

Most county superior courts and many limited jurisdiction courts have
moved ahead and have either completed their emergency planning or
are in the process of developing and refining their plans. In some cases,
courts have combined efforts as in Maricopa County where the Superior
Court and the justice courts recently completed their emergency plans and
updated their security operations.
The foundation has been laid for an ongoing process of emergency and
security planning and review that will save lives, protect property, and
insure the operation of Arizona’s courts during any emergency.

Commission on Minorities
report is on the horizon
The Commission on Minorities (COM) drafted its First Annual Report
Card on Overrepresentation in the Juvenile Justice System. The report,
produced by the joint efforts of the Juvenile Justice Services Division and
the COM Overrepresentation Workgroup, will be released in early 2005.
This report is a result of recommendations from the 2002 Equitable
Treatment of Minority Youth report produced by the Arizona
Supreme Court Commission on Minorities. One of the commission’s
recommendations was to create an annual report card to assess progress
on the reduction of over-representation of minority youth in the juvenile
justice system.
Most previous research on overrepresentation has been point-in-time data,
tracking different juveniles at each stage of the juvenile justice system.
This report differs from earlier reports in that it tracks one group of
juveniles from referral to disposition. This data will serves as a baseline for
future report cards. The intent is to illustrate the current situation, provide a
basis for future comparison and highlight areas of special concern.

23

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Serving the Public by
Improving the Legal Profession
The judiciary has long recognized the indispensable role

“The Court has
taken action to make
legal services more
available to the
public and establish
a system to deal with
abuse perpetrated by
some who prepare
legal documents. I
am proud of what
was accomplished ...
... These new rules
provide Arizona’s
citizens with needed
protection against
unscrupulous or
incompetent legal
assistance, while
providing choices for
consumers of legal
services.”
-- Chief Justice Jones,
speaking to the Arizona
Judicial Conference

of the legal profession in protecting individual rights and
liberties in a free society. We continue in that tradition.
Because the Supreme Court regulates the practice of law;
however, the judiciary must determine how the legal
profession can best serve the public. While the traditional
adversarial system for resolving disputes may be applicable
in the majority of legal disputes, that system may not be
desirable in all cases.

Legal document preparer program
establishes regulations for accountability
The Legal Document Preparer Certification Program, one of only a few
in the nation, strives to protect the public through the establishment of
professional standards and accountability for non-lawyer legal document
preparers in Arizona. The program, governed by Arizona Supreme Court
Rule 31 and Arizona Code of Judicial Administration §§ 7-208, requires
certification for all non-attorney legal document preparers who engage in
the practice of preparing legal documents without the supervision of an
attorney.
The Board of Legal Document Preparers, appointed by the Chief Justice,
is responsible for making all final decisions regarding certification
and disciplinary action. To date, the Board has processed over 1,300
applications for initial and/or renewal of certification.
In addition, the Board has considered and taken action on complaints filed
against certificate holders and individuals who engage in legal document
preparation without certification. Action taken by the Board has included
revocation of certification and filing of cease and desist petitions in the
Superior Court.

Ongoing improvements
for the attorney discipline system
Arizona has seen significant improvements in the amount of time
required to process formal complaints against attorneys as a result of
ongoing cooperation between the State Bar, which prosecutes complaints
against attorneys, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, which is
responsible for the adjudication phase of the process.

24

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Serving the Public by Improving the Legal Profession
A series of improvements to the attorney discipline system has been
launched, based on initiatives approved by the Supreme Court.
Revisions to court rules approved in 2003 and implementation of new
internal procedures has resulted in notable improvements. For example,
the average time for processing formal complaints over a two-year
period decreased by 42 percent. Integral to this effort is the work of the
hearing officers, attorneys who volunteer their time to preside over the
administrative hearings, and the members of the Disciplinary Commission.
The commission is made up of attorneys and members of the public
who also volunnteer their time to consider the disciplinary cases and to
make recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding the appropriate
resolution.

Attorneys take laptops
into admission examinations
In February 2001, Arizona became the fifth jurisdiction in the nation to
permit examinees to use laptop computers for the essay portion of the
attorney bar examination. Since then, an increasing number of examinees
have chosen this option, with 30 percent of the July 2004 bar candidates
electing this option. A total of 1,508 applications were processed for the
February and July 2004 examinations.

25

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics
Caseload and Revenue Highlights
•

Arizona Courts had a total of 2,498,734 case filings in FY 2004.

•

On average, there were 10,076 cases filed in Arizona Courts every working day.

•

On average, there were 1,260 cases filed in Arizona Courts every working hour.

•

Statewide case filings decreased by 30,600 or 1.2%, while Superior Court case
filings increased by 6.5%.

•

Superior Court criminal and domestic relations case filings increased by 5.4% and
11.2%, respectively.

•

While statewide Justice Court case filings decreased by 1.6% in FY 2004, rural
Justice Court case filings increased by 1.7%. The majority of the increase in rural
Justice Courts was in the misdemeanor case category. Misdemeanor case filings
increased by 8.2% in rural Justice Courts in FY 2004.

•

In FY 2004, Municipal Court (statewide) case filings decreased by 2.0%, while the
rural Municipal Court case filings increased by 4.5% during the same period.

•

In FY 2004, there were 88,207 DUI case filings in Justice and Municipal Courts for
an increase of 2.9% from FY 2003.

•

Civil traffic case filings accounted for 56% of all case filings in Justice and
Municipal Courts. This case category decreased by 52,000 case filings, or 3.9%
from FY 2003 to FY 2004.

•

While total statewide case filings are down, revenue increased by $22.4 million
or 9.8% in FY 2004, due in part by extensive collection efforts by the courts and
AOC’s Fines and Restitution Enforcement (FARE) project.

•

Arizona courts have collected more than $1.3 billion in additional revenue over the
$70 million benchmark established in FY 1988.

26

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics

Arizona’s Judiciary Organizational Chart
Supreme Court
5 Justices, 6-year terms
Chief Justice, Vice Chief Justice
3 Associate Justices
Court of Appeals
22 Judges, 6-year terms
Division I, Phoenix
Division II, Tucson
* Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges * Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges
* Counties: Apache, Coconino, LaPaz, * Counties: Cochise, Gila, Graham,
Maricopa, Mohave, Navajo, Yavapai, Greenlee, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz
Yuma
Superior Court
163 Judges, 4-year terms
Presiding Judge in each county
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham

1
4
4
2
1

Justice of the Peace Courts
85 Judges, 85 Precincts, 4-year terms
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
LaPaz
Maricopa

4
6
4
2
2
2
3
23

Mohave
Navajo
Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma

5
6
10
8
2
5
3

Greenlee
LaPaz
Maricopa
Mohave
Navajo

1
1
91
6
3

Pima
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma

28
7
2
6
6

Municipal Courts
129 Full- and Part-time Judges, 4-year terms
Judges Courts
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
Greenlee
LaPaz
Maricopa

3
6
6
5
2
1
2
60

3
6
4
5
3
1
2
23

Judges Courts
Navajo
4
4
Pima
17
5
Pinal
9
9
Santa Cruz
2
2
Yavapai
8
8
Yuma
4
4

27

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics

FY 2004 Case Filings By Court Level
Supreme Court

1,170

Court of Appeals

3,457

Division One

2,596

Division Two

861

Tax Court

1,253

County

Superior

Justice

Municipal

APACHE

1,065

9,559

1,638

COCHISE

4,448

46,150

8,589

COCONINO

3,851

28,771

27,017

GILA

2,358

15,186

8,680

GRAHAM

1,352

5,819

3,218

GREENLEE

321

1,584

550

LA PAZ

951

16,945

3,293

128,876

348,040

956,475

MOHAVE

5,113

49,008

29,586

NAVAJO

3,204

24,526

6,071

PIMA

30,165

189,106

281,845

PINAL

7,801

44,475

29,538

SANTA CRUZ

1,728

10,496

17,890

YAVAPAI

7,235

36,914

41,862

YUMA

6,213

22,142

23,200

TOTAL

204,681

848,721

1,439,452

FY 2003

FY 2004

Difference

2,529,361

2,498,734

(30,627)

MARICOPA

Total Filings

(1.2%)

28

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics

Arizona Supreme Court
•

Supreme Court FY 2004 case filings
decreased 1.7% from cases filed in FY
2003.

•

Cases terminated by the court in FY 2004
increased 0.8% over case terminations in
FY 2003.

•

The difference between filings and
terminations resulted in a pending
caseload decrease of 8.7%, down from
402 on July 1, 2003, to 367 cases on June
30, 2004.

Court of Appeals, Division One
•

Filings in FY 2004 represented a 5.6% decrease from
FY 2003. Total criminal filings, the largest category,
decreased 14.6% from 1,132 in FY 2003 to 967 in FY
2004.

•

FY 2004 case terminations increased by 3.8%.

•

Total cases pending decreased 0.9%, from 2,133 on July
1, 2003 to 2,114 on June 30, 2004.

Court of Appeals, Division Two
•

Total filings in FY 2004 decreased
10.7% from FY 2003. Total criminal
filings, the largest category,
decreased 10.9% from 468 in FY
2003 to 417 in FY 2004.

•

FY 2004 case terminations decreased
by 3.8%.

•

Total cases pending increased by
4.1%, from 1,194 on July 1, 2003 to
1,243 on June 30, 2004.

29

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics

Arizona Tax Court
The Arizona Tax Court serves as the Statewide venue
for all civil actions involving a tax, impost or assessment.
•

A total of 1,253 original cases were filed in the
court during FY 2004, an increase of 21.3% from
the 1,033 cases filed in FY 2003.

•

Of the FY 2004 cases filed, 742 were property
tax actions, accounting for 59.2% of the total.

•

A total of 1,115 cases were terminated, 377 by
judgment.

•

As of June 30, 2004, there were 979 cases
pending in the tax court.

Superior Court
•

Total case filings in FY 2004 increased by 6.5% from FY
2003.

•

Total case terminations increased by 13.2% in the same
period.

•

Civil case filings increased 3.6%, from 50,711 in FY 2003
to 52,523 in FY 2004. In the same period, civil case
terminations were up 8.9%, from 50,624 to 55,114.

•

Criminal case filings increased 5.4%, from 53,198 in FY
2003 to 56,078 in FY 2004. Criminal case terminations
increased 7.9% from 45,647 to 49,248.

•

Domestic relations cases increased 11.2%, from 48,067
in FY 2003 to 53,434 in FY 2004, and domestic relations
case terminations increased 7.1%, from 49,374 to 52,884.
Domestic violence petition filings decreased 4.1% in
Superior Court, from 7,770 to 7,455 in FY 2004.

•

There were 220,197 total cases pending on July 1, 2003,
compared with 214,609 cases pending on June 30, 2004, a
decrease of 2.5%.

•

Juveniles with direct filings to adult court decreased 16.4%,
from 470 in FY 2003 to 393 in FY 2004. Juvenile cases
transferred to adult court increased 8.2%, from 97 in FY
2003 to 105 in FY 2004. A total of 498 juvenile cases were
either transferred or directly filed in adult court in FY 2004
compared to 567 in FY 2003, a decrease of 12.2%.

30

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics

Justice of the Peace Courts
•

Total filings in FY 2004 decreased 1.6% from FY 2003.
Total case terminations decreased 1.7%.

•

Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise almost
two-thirds of all justice court filings, decreased 3.7%, from
539,145 in FY 2003 to 519,235 this fiscal year.

•

Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case filings decreased
3.7%, from 149,100 in FY 2003 to 143,590 in FY 2004.
Criminal case terminations decreased 9.7%, from 147,041
in FY 2003 to 132,717 in FY 2004.

•

Domestic violence petition filings increased 1.8% in justice
courts, from 10,820 to 11,015. Petitions for Injunctions
Against Harassment increased 1.6% from 9,940 to
10,097.

•

Total cases pending increased by 0.7% from 635,786 on
July 1, 2003 to 640,142 on June 30, 2004.

Municipal Courts
•

Case filings in FY 2004 decreased 2.0% from
FY 2003. Total case terminations increased
1.4% in the same period

•

Civil and criminal traffic filings, which
comprise about three-fourths of all municipal
court cases, decreased 2.5%, from 1,073,947
in FY 2003 to 1,047,172 in FY 2004.

•

Criminal misdemeanor case filings increased
0.3% from 233,507 in FY 2003 to 234,139
in FY, 2004. Criminal misdemeanor case
terminations increased 6.6%, from 235,046 in
FY 2003 to 250,526 in FY 2004.

•

Domestic violence petitions increased 3.8%,
from 12,920 in FY 2003 to 13,405 in FY 2004.
Petitions for Injunction Against Harassment
decreased 2.9% from 9,695 to 9,412.

•

Total cases pending decreased 1.8%, from
855,309 on July 1, 2003 to 839,507 on June
30, 2004.

31

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics
Juvenile Court Referrals

•

There were 76,049 referrals to juvenile
court in FY 2004, a 1.4% increase
compared to 75,030 in the previous fiscal
year.

•

78,049 referrals were terminated in FY
2004, a 1.0% decrease compared to the
78,826 referrals terminated in FY 2003.

Juvenile Court Petitions
•

A total of 31,008 petitions were filed in FY 2004,
a 5.0% increase from the 29,534 petitions filed in
FY 2003.

•

A total of 29,727 petitions were terminated in
FY 2004, a 1.0% increase from the 29,428
terminated in FY 2003.

Juvenile Probation/Corrections

Adult
Probation
•

The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of
Arizona adult probation departments at the end of
FY 2004 increased 4.5% from 63,763 on July 1,
2003 to 66,642 on June 30, 2004.

•

Of the 66,642 under the jurisdiction of adult
probation, 61,280 were on standard probation,
4,164 on intensive probation, and 1,198 were
interstate compact cases.

•

The number of juveniles on probation at the
end of FY 2004 increased 2.7% from 8,876
on July 1, 2003 to 9,115 on June 30, 2004.

•

A total of 8,988 adjudicated juveniles were
place on probation in FY 2004, a 5.4%
increase from the 8,524 youths placed on
probation in FY 2003.

•

8,696 juveniles were released from
probation, a decrease of 4.9% from the
9,144 terminated last year.

•

884 juveniles were committed to the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections during
FY 2004, a decrease of 4.5% from the 926
committed last fiscal year.

32

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics

Statewide Revenue and Expenditure Summary
Revenue
•

Total statewide court revenue increased
9.8%, from $229.8 million in FY 2003 to
$252.2 million in FY 2004, reflecting the
continuing efforts of the courts statewide
to collect court-ordered fines, fees, and
surcharges.

•

The second graph (Increased Revenue
Trend) represents the trend in increased
court revenue above the $70 million
benchmark established in FY 1988. Since
that time, courts have collected over $1.3
billion in additional revenue.

•

Of the total court system revenue, the
state received 36.2%, counties received
33.8% and cities and towns 30.0%.

•

47.8% of total court revenue was
generated by municipal courts, 25.7% by
justice courts, 24.6% by Superior Court
and 1.9% by appellate courts.

•

Total restitution payments for victims
collected by courts decreased 5.4% from
$17.0 million in FY 2003 to $16.1 million in
FY 2004.

33

2004 Report of the
Arizona Judicial Branch

Annual Report Statistics

Expenditure Summary
•

Total statewide court expenditures increased 1.6% from
$508.2 million in FY 2003 to $516.3 million in FY 2004.

•

60.9 % of the total funds spent by the court system were
from the counties, 23.4% from the state, 14.7% from cities
and towns, and 1.0% from federal and private sources.

•

70.5% of total court expenditures were in Superior Court
(including probation), 14.7% in municipal courts, 7.6% at
the appellate level (including statewide administration) and
7.2% in the justice courts.

The data contained in this report was compiled from Supreme Court financial records, caseload
reports from courts, and responses to the unaudited Supreme Court survey of expenditures and
revenues for fiscal year 2004 (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004). All data received by the publication
deadline is included but some information is preliminary. Final counts will be published in the
2004 Arizona Courts Data Report early in 2005.
©2005 Arizona Supreme Court
Published by
Arizona Supreme Court
Administrative Offi ce of the Courts
1501 W. Washington, Ste. 411
Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231
(602) 542-9300 TDD (602) 542-9545
http://www.supreme.state.az.us
This publication may be provided in an alternative format or other assistance may be provided
upon request by a qualified individual with a disability under the provisions of The Americans
with Disabilities Act.

34