Report of the Arizona Judicial Branch

              1998 Report
of the
ARIZONA
JUDICIAL BRANCH
"Building
a Better
Judicial
System"
Courts Under Construction ... Protecting Children, Families and Communities
Justice 2002
Justice 2002 is the strategic agenda for the Arizona Judicial
Branch. The four goals of the agenda include Protecting
Children, Families and Communities; Providing Access to
Swift, Fair Justice; Connecting with the Community; and
Being Accountable.
Chief]ustice Thomas Zlaket
On behalf of the Arizona Judicial
Branch, I proudly present the 1998 Annual
Report. This document reflects countless
hours of dedicated public service by our many
employees, all of whom care deeply about
Arizona's courts.
The judicial branch of government strives
to deliver an independent justice system that
carefully considers the rights and obligations
of its citizens, and promptly renders impartial
decisions free of outside influences or
pressures. The system cannot survive without
the trust and confidence of those it serves.
This annual report should ass ist in
updating Justice 2002, our strategic agenda
and the blueprint for future court projects.
Hopefully, it also shows the progress we've
made in our ongoing efforts to build public
trust and confidence.
In many ways, Arizona's court system
is the envy of the nation. We listen to our
citizens, embrace new ideas, pursue innova­tive
methods and attempt always to remain
accountable. For these and many other
reasons, our courts will continue to break
new ground in the administration of justice.
My thanks to all those court employees who
work hard every day transforming worthwhile
goals into reality.
Sincerely,
Courts protect Arizona's children, families
and communities by providing them an indepen­dent,
neutral forum for resolving disputes; limit­ing
the arbitrary use of government power to take
their liberty, property, children, or life; and by
dispensing justice in a fair and equitable manner.
In 1998, the courts served these groups by
improving how children and families are served
in family law matters; ensuring that juvenile
detention facilities are available, safe and secure;
helping to protect victims of domestic violence;
and providing assistance to elderly citizens
through a legal hotline and new safeguards for
private fiduciaries. These and other accomplish­ments
are highlighted below.
Building a Model Court Project
In the 1998 legislative session, Arizona's courts -­with
the support of legislators, Governor Jane Dee Hull
and many others -- championed legislation that will
implement statewide a reengineered case processing
system to reduce the time abused and neglected chil­dren
spend in out-of-home placement. The Model
Court Project is part of the overall Court Improvement
Project, and has brought together all members of the
system to expedite these emotional cases. Statewide
implementation of Model Court, which stresses
involvement of the parents at the earliest stages of pro­ceedings,
began in 1998.
Early results of the Pima County pilot project con­ducted
last year proved encouraging. After 60 days
from filing of the dependency petition, twice as many
children moving through Model Court procedures were
placed with parents and/or relatives as compared to
non-Model Court cases. Additionally, the average
number of days to an adjudication ruling on Model
Court cases was 43, compared to 85 days for non­Model
Court cases.
"What Model Court offers ... is a major break­through
in court procedures that used to drag
along. The project brings together parents, case­workers,
attorneys and others quickly after a
child enters the system to expedite things."
- Arizona Daily Star, April 18, 1998
Constructing Juvenile Detention Facilities
The Legislature responded to the court-produced
Juvenile Detention Master Plan by providing an addi­tional
$6.6 million in state funds to augment much­needed
funding from the previous year. Efforts to
upgrade and expand juvenile facilities are underway in
all counties. Counties that have already broken ground
include Pima, Pinal, Mohave and Yavapai.
Expanding Domestic Violence Protection
The Supreme Court Committee on the Impact of
Domestic Violence and the Courts and the staff of the
Administrative Office of the Courts, with assistance
from many who work in the domestic violence arena,
produced standardized procedures and forms to make it
easier for courts to protect victims of domestic violence.
Also, legislation initiated by the Arizona Judicial
Council and the Supreme Court -- supported by many
legislators, the Execmive Branch and community advo­cates
-- provided protection for victims and account­ability
for offenders by obtaining funding for supervised
probation of certain domestic violence offenders.
Elder Law Hotline Project
The Hotline offers free legal
ass istance to Arizona residents
age 60 and older, wi th no
income restrictions. At no
' \ I ;
charge, callers can speak to an attorney who will pro­vide
brief legal assistance or services.
The Elder Law Hotline is operated by Southern
Arizona Legal Aid, a Tucson-based, not-for-profit orga­nization.
The Arizona Bar Foundation monitors the
performance of the Hotline for customer satisfaction,
product quality and appropriateness of referrals. The
Hotline handles a variety of legal issues including land­lord/
tenant disputes, bankruptcy, protective proceed­ings,
probate and consumer protection. If the case
involves a non-legal matter, the caller is referred to the
appropriate agency or non-governmental entity.
Supporting Private Fiduciary Protections
The Ar izona Supreme Court announced in
September 1998 the implementation of a ground break­ing
program that will help ensure Arizona's elderly,
mentally incapacitated and other vulnerable citizens
have trained and certified individuals managing their
financial affairs, medical decisions and other vital
matters. The program is believed to be the first of its
kind in the United States. Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket
signed the historic Administrative Order adopting the
Private Fiduciary Certification Administrative Rules on
September 21, 1998 pursuant to A.R.S. §14-565 1,
relating to the registration of private fiduciaries.
Courts Under Construction ... Providing Access to Swift, Fair Justice
All citizens-victims, litigants and defen­dants-
deserve access to a fair and swift process
for resolving civil or criminal disputes.
In 1998, the Arizona court system contin­ued
its effort to ensure that resources are ade­quate
and that court procedures, policies and
practices were consistent with this important
goal. As outlined below, the "Fill The Gap"
effort, reengineered case processing, an efficient
and effective juvenile justice system, and contin­uing
improvements in strategic technology plan­ning
were among the many ways the court sys­tem
increased public access to swift, fair justice.
Working to Fill The Gap
The "Fill The Gap" initiative began in the 1998
legislative session to call attention to the increased
resources at the "front" and "back" ends of the justice
system -- 21 percent more police officers; 25 percent
more arrests; 22 percent rise in criminal case filings;
6,600 new prison beds -- that occurred from 1992 to
1996. These increases put a tremendous strain on the
"middle" of the system, creating a resource "gap" that
needs to be filled.
In an unprecedented show of unity, the Arizona
criminal justice community, led by Chief Just ice
Zlaket, announced the "Fill The Gap" legislative pro­posal
to help solve these critical problems in the crimi­nal
justice system. The criminal justice team consisted
of the Supreme Court, Superior Court judges, the
Attorney General, county prosecutors, public defend­ers,
clerks, court administrators, county officials, and
victims' representatives.
The 1998 effort by the justice community resulted
in the Legislature approving $350,000 to fund reengi­neering
projects to improve processing of criminal
cases in the Superior Courts and Justice Courts. To be
eligible for funding, courts, county attorneys, and the
defense bar submitted plans that demonstrated collab­orative
efforts designed to reduce case processing delay.
"The timely processing of cases is
important to keeping our communities safe
and maintaining public trust and confidence
in our system of justice."
- Chief Justice Thomas Zlaket
Reengineered Case Processing
As a key component of the "Fill The Gap" effort,
Arizona courts recognized that, in addition to much­needed
additional resources necessary in the "middle"
of the justice system, an effort must be made to
improve the process by which cases flow. Delays in
this system affect victims, families, defendants, and the
public at large -- real people, real situations.
Courts and others responded in 1998 by studying
the problems, then implementing new and better ways
of handling cases from beg inning to end, and the
results have been significant. Maricopa, Coconino and
Yavapai are three prime examples of counties that
began to see often dramatic improvements.
For example, the Civil Department of Superior
Court in Maricopa County announced in 1998 that it
had drastically cut the number of pending cases in the
previous year. Reengineering caseload practices result­ed
in a 23.4 percent decrease. Among many other
methods, judges stopped the practice of waiting for all
defendants to answer and certify before appointing
arbitrators, and organized teams of civil judges to back
up each other to maintain firm trial da tes. The
Alternative Dispute Resolution Program was also
expanded to allow more options for reaching conclu­sion
of a case.
The Superior Court in Coconino County showed
dramatic results in the percentage of criminal cases
taking more than 90 days to resolve -- from 72 percent
down to 31 percent after reengineering the process.
The county was saved a considerable amount of money
by cutting the average length of jail time for defen­dants
awaiting disposition from 173 days to only 55
after the reengineering efforts. After reengineering,
Superior Court in Yavapai County cut its median case
processing time from 183 days to just 88.
The Superior Court in Mohave, Pima, Yuma and
Pinal counties also began similar studies on reengineer­ing
case processing.
Rebuilt Juvenile Justice System Rated #1
An independent consulting firm hired by the
Legislature to conduct an audit of the juvenile justice
system called Arizona's juvenile justice system, "one of
the best in the country." Deloitte Touche Consulting
reported its findings in November 1998 to members of
the Joint Legislative Committee on Juvenile Justice.
Following the 6-month aud it, Deloitte Touche
Consulting claimed that the procurement process used
by the Administrative Office of the Courts' Juvenile
Justice Services Division to secure treatment services is
"the best--one that should be adopted by the rest of
state government."
The agencies that make up the state's juvenile jus­tice
system (Department of Ju venile Corrections,
county juvenile justice programs, juvenile courts and
the state Depa rtments of Econo mic Securit y,
Behavioral Health Services and Education) are work­ing
to better coordinate their efforts to deal with juve­nile
offenders. In the meantime, Deloitte Touche says
" ... Arizona has a very sound system."
"Arizona's juvenile justice system is one of the
best in the country."
- Deloitte Touche Consulting
A Technology Blueprint
The Judicial Branch is in its sixth year of deploying
and supporting automation statewide. A sophisticated
and extensive infrastructure is required to support this
effort. Most important to communication and coordi­nation
is a network connecting the courts in Arizona.
The Arizona Judici al In format ion Network
(AJ IN) is a state-of- the-art frame relay network
extending to 121 court sites and 53 juvenile probation
and detention sites statewide, with plans to expand to
58 ad ult probation sites. The Judicial Branch has
responsibility for the expansion and maintenance of
the network and for working with communication
providers to assure uninterrupted system availab ility.
The Arizona Court Automation Project (ACAP)
is a project deploying jury, case and cash management
software to all courts statewide. As of 1998, the pro­ject
has been implemented in 118 general and limited
jurisd ict ion cour ts in Arizona. Phase 2, which
invo lved implementation in Maricopa and Pima
County small city courts, and Pinal County city courts,
was completed.
The automated Juvenile On-Line Tracking System
(JOLTS) continued to expand in 1998. JOLTS is used
in juvenile probation offices, juvenile court and deten­tion
facilities in Arizona. Among other things, these
entities can now use JOLTS to view photos of juveniles
from different counties and track treatment services
given to juveniles. This type of vital data is needed to
accurately predict trends in juvenile justice and plan
resources and strategies accordingly. Additionally, new
modules are being implemented to assist courts in the
management and tracking of dependency cases, and to
assist crime victims.
The Arizona Judicial Branch also began a deter­mined,
serious effort to ready itself for the "Y2K prob­lem"
in 1998. The effort was formed as a result of the
work of many, including the Commiss ion on
Technology, a subcommittee of the Arizona Judicial
Council. Individual components of the Y2K effort
include complete testing of all software deployed
statewide for Y2K compliance by June 1999.
With the increasing presence of people wanting
low-cost access to the co urt system, the Ari zona
Supreme Court announced in Janua ry 1998 that
QuickCourt, its award-winning kiosk system providing
free or low-cost legal information and forms, was avail­ab
le at most county co urthouses in Ari zona.
QuickCourt continued to be available at other sites in
every county, but citizens throughout the state were
assured of easier access to legal forms and information.
Courts Under Construction ... Connecting With the Community
Courts and judges should be independent and free of outside influence
when deciding cases. Cases should be decided based on the law and case
merits, regardless of the involved parties' economic or political status.
However, judges can and should be involved in their communities.
The Judicial Branch in 1998 implemented programs to improve how it
listens to communities and established effective methods of communication
between citizens and the courts. Highlighted below, the Citizen Summits
held throughout Arizona, oral arguments taken "on the road," and expand­ed
court information available through the Internet are just a few of the
ways the Arizona court system is connecting with those it serves.
Citizen Summits - Building Community Awareness
In order to effectively listen to citizens, it is necessary to bring them together to
focus on the issues at hand. An on-going series of "Citizen Summits" were conduct­ed
throughout Arizona, beginning in June 1998 in Flagstaff. Summits were also held
in Phoenix (November 5 and 10) and in Tucson (December 15). The primary goal
was to listen to citizens' thoughts and concerns about the Judicial Branch. More
than 500 people came from throughout the varying communities and court systems,
from nearly every county and from a broad range of economic, social, racial, reli­gious
and political perspectives.
The Citizen Summits are part of the Judicial Branch's attempt to better commu­nicate
with Arizonans, and the information gathered is part of a nationwide court
effort along these lines. In May 1999, a national Public Trust and Confidence
Conference will be held in Washington, D.C.
Oral Arguments "On The Road"
The Arizona Supreme Court, as part of its effort to bring the court system closer
to the people of the state, held oral arguments in Yuma and Cochise counties in
1998.
In April, at Arizona Western College's Little Theater in Yuma, the Supreme
Court heard oral arguments in three cases. The public was invited to attend, and
more than 100 students, teachers and everyday citizens filled the auditorium. In
November, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in two cases at Buena High
School in Sierra Vista. Several hundred spectators from throughout the
Bisbee/Sierra Vista communities observed the arguments and also participated in a
question and answer session afterward. Several community events were held in
Yuma, Bisbee and Sierra Vista that allowed community members to meet the
Supreme Court and discuss areas of interest in the justice system.
Expanding Internet Access
Fiscal Year 1998 saw a tremendous increase in the amount and types of informa­tion
available through various court Internet sites in Arizona.
The Arizona Judicial Branch's site (www.supreme.state.az.us), hosted by the
Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, continued to expand with a
wide array of information for the court community and general public. Among
many other uses, citizens can now access information on-line about Supreme Court
opinions, jury duty, press releases, and information about programs such as the
Confidential Intermediary Program, the Elder Law Hotline, and the Commission on
Judicial Performance Review. Information on child support and domestic violence
issues are also available with the click of a button, as are links to many other court­related
sites.
The Superior Court in Maricopa, Pima and Cochise counties each have
Internet web sites, along with limited jurisdiction courts in Pima County
(Consolidated Justice Courts), and the municipal courts in Mesa, Tempe, Scottsdale,
Tucson and Oro Valley.
-
Judicial Branch Organization Summary - 1999*
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
--
Apache
Cochise
Coconino
Gila
Graham
1
4
4
2
1
Supreme Court
5 Justices, 6-Year Terms
Chief Justice Vice-Chief Justice
3 Associate Justices
Court of Appeals
22 Judges, 6-Year Terms
Division One - Phoenix
Chief Judge & 15 Associate Judges
Division Two - Tucson
Chief Judge & 5 Associate Judges
Superior Court **
138 Judges, 4-Year Terms
Presiding Judge in Each County
Greenlee 1 Pima
La Paz 1 Pinal
27
5
Maricopa 71 Santa Cruz 2
Mohave 6 Yavapai 5
Navajo 3 Yuma 5
Justices of the Peace
84 Judges, 84 Precincts, 4-Year Terms
4 Greenlee 2 Pima 9
6 La Paz 3 Pinal 8
4 Maricopa 23 Santa Cruz 2
2 Mohave 5 Yavapai 5
2 - Navajo 6 Yuma 3 - -- --
Municipal Courts
142 Full and Part-Time Judges, 85 Cities/Towns
Judges Courts Judges Courts
Apache 3 3 Mohave 3 3
Cochise 6 6 Navajo 4 5
Coconino 10
Gila 5
Graham 4
Greenlee 2
La Paz 2
Maricopa 60
4 Pima 21 5
5
3
2
2
23
Pinal
Santa Cruz
Yavapai
Yuma
8
2
8
4
8
2
8
4
* Numbers may change throughout 1999.
** More than 40 court commissioners are appointed by presiding
judges through an application and interview process, and they handle
cases as assigned by the presiding judge. The bulk of their work
addresses civil, probate and domestic relations matters.
Courts Under Construction ... Being Accountable
The court system must use taxpayer resources wisely and achieve desired
results.
Among many different programs, in 1998 this objective required the con­tinuation
of judicial performance review and the dissemination of the results
to the public; an increased emphasis on enforcement of court orders, proba­tion
requirements, and collections; and the drive to increase the amount of
public members serving on the courts' various policy-making committees.
Judicial Performance Review - Establishing Trust
The 1998 Voter Information Guide prepared by the Commission on Judicial
Performance Review is part of an on-going effort to provide as much information as pos­sible
to voters about all appellate court judges, and Superior Court judges in Maricopa
and Pima counties.
Arizona's public process of evaluating the performance of these judges is perhaps
the finest in the nation. The members of the Commission, the majority of whom are
ordinary citizens who volunteer their time, worked long and hard in 1998 to produce
this valuable information.
The Commission does not operate behind closed doors. The process is completely
open to any member of the public who wants to voice an opinion on the performance of
any judge subj ect to merit selection. In fact, the public is actively invited to participate,
and the number of surveys returned by non-lawyers to the Commission is very impressive
when compared to those states that rely solely on attorney evaluations. All opinions are
considered and the information is made available to the media and general public.
The 1998 Voter Information Guide was distributed at primary election polling sites
in September, and made available on the Supreme Court web page and by request at a
toll-free telephone number.
The Commission made successful efforts to have the news media assist in distribut­ing
the contents of the 1998 Voter Information Guide to voters. As a result, many more
citizens became familiar with the Report of the Commission on Judicial Performance
Review and had direct access to the guide.
Most major newspapers in Arizona gave coverage to the results of the Commission
Report, including the biographies of judges, summaries of survey results, phone numbers
and In te rnet site addresses, and fa vorable comments on the process of Judicial
Performance Review.
"By virtually any standard of measure, Arizona judges meet the test of quality
throughout the judicial system. This high quality of public service comes in
large measure due to the efforts of the Commission on Judicial Performance
Review ... "
- The Arizona Republic, September 24, 1998
Improving Collections and Enforcement
In 1998, Chief Justice Zlaket continued to place an emphasis on increased enforce­ment
of court-ordered financial sanctions, and many efforts were put in place to boost
the level of collections and make sure that orders of the court were not simply ignored.
Revenues continue to increase, reflective of the Judicial Branch's ongoing efforts in
this regard. Fiscal Year 1998 saw court revenues of $169 million, an increase of more
than 13 percent over 1997, and a dramatic increase in total dollars collected compared
with $70 million in the benchmark year of 1988. Revenues collected in excess of the
1988 benchmark now total in excess of $483 million. Also, total restitution payments
collected in 1998 by courts increased more than 12% over 1997.
Counties have used a variety of methods to increase collections. Some, like
Apache County, have dedicated personnel keeping track of amounts outstanding,
sending late notices, and notifying the court when problems require legal action,
such as filing a petition to revoke probation. Others, such as Pima County, have
worked cooperatively with clerks of the court, placing clerks at the probation
offices to actually collect monies. Other counties - Pinal, Yavapai and Yuma, for
example - have simply made increased collections a higher priority for probation
officers.
Also, the Debt Setoff Program enables all Arizona courts to intercept Arizona
state income tax refunds if the court-ordered debt is at least $50. Arizona Lottery
winnings can be intercepted if the amount outstanding is at least $ 100. If a court
provides the name, Social Security number and the full amount of the debt to the
Debt Setoff Program, and a debt claim matches with a taxpayer's refund or lottery
winning, an intercept will occur.
Debt Setoff Program statistics as of September 30, 1998 include: 75 partici­pating
courts, 7,890 claims intercepted, and more than $880,000 intercepted.
More Public Members - Creating Connections
The many councils, commissions and subcommittees of Arizona's Judicial
Branch were augmented in 1998 by additional members of the public, those out­side
the court system who provide fresh approaches and new ideas often not con­sidered
by those practicing in the justice arena. This concerted effort was part of
an overall attempt to increase the court system's responsiveness to public needs
and perceptions. For example, the Arizona Judicial Council, which oversees the
administrative policy direction of the Judicial Branch, added three new public
members in October 1998.
In addition, hundreds of Arizona citizens continue to volunteer every year in
various capacities in our court system. These include members of the Foster Care
Review Board, Court Appointed Special Advocates, members of three separate
judicial nominating commissions, the Arizona Judicial Council, the Commission
on Judicial Performance Review, and many others.
Commission on Judicial Conduct
The Commission on Judicial Conduct is an independent agency that
investigates complaints against state and local judges involving violations of
the Code of Judicial Conduct.
In 1998, the 11 -member commission received 107 4 inquires and 290
complaints. The commission dismissed 299 cases for lack of jurisdiction, no
grounds, lack of sufficient or no evidence of judicial misconduct. The com­mission
issued informal or private sanctions in 18 cases and informally
resolved 4 cases with letters of instruction. In addition, the commission
recommended public censure for one judge, suspension without pay for two
judges, and it accepted the voluntary resignation of one judge after formal
charges were filed.
The Judicial
Ethics Advisory
Committee issued 6
formal opinions dur­ing
the year, which
are distributed to all
judges. The com­mittee
responded to
more than 160
requests for advice
on ethical issues.
Commission on Judicial Conduct
Caseload Summary 1996-1998 (calendar year)
Description 1996 1997 1998
Inquiries 963 891 1074
Complaints 246 254 290
Informal Actions 25 33 18
Formal Actions 3 4 4
Arizona Supreme Court
I
FY 98
FY 97
FY 96
I
1.4581J
1,275 I) 7
1.499 (L
1,5927,
'
1,671 lJ
1,646 lJ
D Cases Filed D Terminated
• Supreme Court FY 98 case filings decreased 2. 7 %
from cases filed in FY 97.
• Cases terminated by the court in FY 98 decreased
19.9 % over case terminations in FY 97.
• The difference between filings and terminations
resulted in a pending caseload increase of 4 7 .0 %,
up from 389 cases on July 1, 1997, to 572 cases on
June30, 1998.
FY 98 CASE FILINGS BY COURT LEVEL
Supreme Court ................................... 1,458
Court of Appeals ............................... .3,861
Division One ................................ 2, 704
Division Two ................................ 1,157
Tax Court .......................................... .1,961
County Superior Justice Municipal
Apache 931 14,228 2,093
Cochise 3,664 39,241 9,382
Coconino 3,386 28,090 28,184
Gila 2,434 15,465 7,891
Graham 1,263 5,868 3,364
Greenlee 365 2,138 622
La Paz 706 13,807 3,588
Maricopa 107,674 319,087 888,3 73
Mohave 5,881 42,093 25,897
Navajo 2,645 31,370 6,565
Pima 27,345 186,846 25 1,666
Pinal 6,627 42,795 29,278
Santa Cruz 1,418 8,365 14,073
Yavapai 5,710 35,616 33,144
Yuma 6,232 26,907 28,119
TOTALS: 176,281 811,916 1,332,239
Total 1998 1997 Difference
FILINGS: 2,327,716 2,255,597 72,119
+3.1 %
----1 ., __ ,.,.. uu111 • .au, 1 ililOJ
Court of Appeals, Division One
FY 98
2.704 _])
2,566 J)
_j
FY
2,669 _1l,
97
2.752 jJ
...i.
FY 96
2,51 1 J
2,569 )
D Cases Filed
D Terminated_
• Filings in FY 98 represented a 1.3 % increase from
FY 97. Total criminal filing s, the largest
category, increased 6.5 % from 965 in FY 97 to
1,028 in FY 98.
• FY 98 case terminations decreased by 6.8 %.
• Total cases pending increased 7.2 %, from 1,918 on
July 1, 1997 to 2,056 on June 30, 1998.
Court of Appeals, Division Two
FY
FY
FY
98
97
96
Deases Filed D Terminated
• Total filings in FY 98 increased 0.1 % from FY 97.
Total criminal case filings, the largest category,
decreased 9 .4 % from 683 in FY 9 7 to 619
in FY 98.
• FY 98 case terminations were down 10.1 %.
e Total pending cases increased 1.4 % from 1,195 on
July 1, 1997 to 1,212 on June 30, 1998.
Statistical Trends/Highlights
0 Criminal case filings in Superior Court continued to increase, rising more than
14 percent, significantly higher than the population growth rate of just over 2 percent.
Similarly, the adult probation population rose more than 13 percent.
@ Despite the 14 percent growth in criminal filings, more effective and efficient case
processing produced a 19 percent increase in case terminations.
@ Revenues continue to increase, reflective of the Judicial Branch's ongoing efforts to
enforce court orders. Fiscal Year 1998 saw court revenues of $169 million, compared with $70
million in the benchmark year of 1988. The total increase in collections since 1988 now equals
$483 .5 million.
0 Cost to process a case in 1998 was $101.30.
Arizona Tax Court
FY 98
FY 97
FY 96
1,961
-
D Cases Filed D Terminated
The Arizona Tax Court serves as the statewide
venue for all civil actions involving a tax, impost or
assessment. Recent changes in Arizona's tax law are
reflected in case filings.
• A total of 1,961 original cases were filed in the
court during FY 98, a decrease of 29.9 % from the
2,798 cases filed in FY 97.
• Of the FY 98 cases filed, 1,616 were property tax
actions, accounting for 82.4 % of the total.
• A total of 2,829 cases were terminated: 1,128 by
judgment.
• As of June 30, 1998, there were 848 cases pending
in the tax court.
Court Statistics by Fiscal Year [July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998 1
Superior Court
FY 98
176 .J)
172 l)
I I
FY 97 169 J
164 )
FY 96
161
154 j,
0 lO 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
THOUSANDS
D Cases Filed D T erminated
• Total case filings in FY 98 increased 4.1 % from
FY 97.
• Total case terminations increased 4.8 % in the same
period.
• Civil case fil ings increased 8.6 %, from 43 ,403 in
FY 97 to 47.147 in FY 98. In the same period, civil
case terminations were up 4.5 % from 46.035 to
48.101.
• Criminal case filings were up 14 .l % from 37,046 in
FY 97 to 42.287 in FY 98. Criminal case termina­tions
increased 19.0 % from 34,455 to 41,004.
• Domestic relations cases decreased 6.2 % from
52.762 in FY 97 to 49,486 in FY 98, and domestic
relations case terminations decreased 8.0 % from
50.119 to 46.093. Domestic violence petition filings
increased 3.9 % in Superior Court from 3,810 to
3,957.
• There were 166.3 11 cases pending on July 1, 1997,
compared with 161.395 cases pending on June 30,
1998, a decrease of3.0 %.
• Juveniles with direct filings to adult court increased
by 1040.9 %, from 66 in FY 97 to 753 in FY 98.
Juvenile cases transferred to adult court decreased
by 48.0 %, from 646 in FY 97 to 336 in FY 98.
A total of 1,089 juvenile cases were either trans­ferred
or directly filed in adult court in FY 98 com­pared
to 712 in FY 97, an increase of 53%.
Adult Probation
• The number of individuals under the jurisdiction of
Arizona adult probation departments at the end of
FY 98 increased 13.6 % from 42,901 on July 1, 1997
to 48.728 on June30, 1998.
• Of the 48.728 under the jurisdiction of adult proba­tion,
43,593 were on standard probation, 3.82 7 on
intensive probation, and 1.308 were interstate com­pact
cases.
• There were 26.610 probation cases added to the in
county supervision count during FY 98.
• There were 21,848 probation cases terminated from
the in county supervision category during FY 98.
Juvenile Court Referrals
FY 98 84.7 19 _,lJ
8 1,593 Ji
FY 97 84 ,504 ~
84,945
FY 96
86,617 J)
80,825 ~
D eases Filed D Terminated
• There were 84,719 referrals to juve nile court in
FY 98, a 0.3 % increase compared to 84,504 in the
previous year.
• 81.593 referrals were terminated in FY 98, a 3.9 %
decrease compared to the 84,945 referrals tenninated
in FY 97.
Juvenile Court Petitions
• A total of 31.218 petitions were filed in FY 98, a
3. 7 % increase over 30.102 petitions filed in FY 97.
• A total of 30,689 petitions were terminated in FY
98, a 4.1 % increase over the 29,488 terminated in
FY97.
• Juvenile dependency case filings increased by 6.2%,
from 1.309 in FY 97 to [.390 in FY 98. Terminations
also increased by 2.6%, from 1.335 in FY 97 to 1.3 70
in FY 98.
Juvenile Probation/Corrections
r--F
FY981-[- -
1
-, - , - a:il58 1J
FY97l-r-- - -7,30l' U
FY96f 7,619 u i
6. 155 D I :
D Added D T erminatcd
• The number of juveniles on probation at the end of
FY 98 increased 5.5 % from 8,643 on July 1, 1997
to 9, 117 on June30, 1998.
• A total of 8,532 adjudicated juveniles were placed
on probation in FY 98, a 7.5 % increase over the
7,934 youths placed on probation in FY 97.
• 8,058 juve niles were terminated from probation,
an increase of 10.3 % from the 7.307 terminated
last year.
• 1,670 juveniles were committed to the Arizona
Department of Juvenile Corrections during FY 98,
an increase of 17 .6 % from the 1,419 committed
last year.
Municipal Courts
I
FY 98
1,332 _j,j
---
1,330 j.,'
: I
FY
1,278 );
97
1,254 ,,),'. -
FY 96
1,247 _j)
1,203 _l),
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1.200 1.400
THOUSANDS
D Cases Filed D Terminated
• Case filings in FY 98 increased 4.2 % from FY 97.
Total case terminations increased 6.0 % in the same
period.
• Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise
almost three-fourths of all municipal court cases,
inc reased 6.0 %, from 947, 176 in FY 97 to
1,003,706 in FY 98.
• Criminal misdemeanor case filings decreased 1.9 %
from 237,864 in FY 97 to 233,402 in FY 98.
Criminal case terminations decreased 8.3 % from
242,435 in FY 97 to 222,426 in FY 98.
• Domestic violence petitions decreased 1.7 % from
10,792 in FY 97 to 10,605 in FY 98. Petitions for
Injunction Against Harassment increased 2.1 %,
from 8,379 to 8,555.
• Total cases pending decreased 1.7 %, from 611.286
on July 1. 1997 to 600,921 on June 30, 1998.
Justice of the Peace Courts
812 V
FY 981 752 D I
800 IA
FY 97 t ---, _ _,754_ Q--l-
~ _=:= ' ' 790 0:
FY 96 755 IJ i
0 I 00 200 JOO 400 ;oo 600 i OO 800 900
T HOUSAN D S
D Cases Filed D Terminated
• Total filings in FY 98 increased 1.5 % from FY 97.
Total case terminations decreased 0.4 %.
• Civil and criminal traffic filings, which comprise
more than two-thirds of all justice court filings,
decreased 1.7 %, from 517,080 in FY 97 to 508,495
this year.
• Criminal (misdemeanor and felony) case filings
increased 10.9 % from 155,221 in FY 97 to 172,1 29
in FY 98. Criminal case terminations increased
4.4 % from 131 ,770 in FY 97 to 137,605 in FY 98.
• Domestic violence petition filings rose 4. 7 % in jus­tice
courts, from 7,789 to 8, 154. Petitions for
Injunction Against Harassment were up 13.5 %
from 7,287 to 8.268.
• Total cases pending increased 8.3 % from 454,731 on
July 1, 1997 to 492.345 on June 30, 1998.
Statewide Revenue and Expenditure Summary
Revenue Summary
• Total statewide court revenue
increased 13 .3 % from $149 .4
million in FY 97 to $169.2 million in
FY 98, reflecting the continuing efforts
of the courts statewide to collect court­ordered
fines, fees and surcharges.
FY
FY
-
98
- 1
97
-
I
I :
i --
I i I I
I 69 u
I I
149 rJ
i
I 35 1J !
Revenue in Excess of 1988 Benchmark
FY98 99.2 I
:
I FY96 59.2 Ii
-r-- I
FY 94 42 9 lJ
400 ~ I i FY 92 i
0 10 20 30 ,w 50 60 70 W 00 100
$ MILLIO NS
Dlncreased
Revenue Trend
Counties
34.5%
State 32.5%
Revenue Generated
FY 96
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
$ MILLIONS
DRevenue
Collected
Increased Revenue Trend
• This graph represents the trend in
increased court revenue above the
$70 million benchmark established
in FY 1988. Since that time, courts
have co llected more than $483
million in additional revenue.
Revenue Received
• Of the total court system revenue, the
state received 32.5 %, counties received
34.5 % and cities and towns 33.0 %.
Municipal
47.9%
Superior
24.3%
• 4 7. 9 % of total court revenue was
generated by municipal courts, 25.4 % by
justice courts, 24.3 % by Superior Court
and 2.5 % by appellate courts.
-
FY 98
-
FY 97
i I i I I
10.5 IJ Restitution
I ! I
9.4
$ MILLJON S
D Restitution
Collected
DI
• Total restitution payments for victims
collected by courts increased 12.6 %
from 9.4 million in FY 97 to 10.5
10 12 million in FY 98.
Expenditure Summary
• Total statewide court expenditures
increased 10.8 % from $353.2
million in FY 97 to $391.5 million
in FY 98.
FY
FY
FY
-A : I
98
- I
97
- ! I
96
I I I I
391.5 D
I I I i
353
I I I !
337 lJ
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
$ MI L L l O N S
County
50.4%
Municipal
14.2%
.3%
State
35 .2%
D Expenditures
Funds Expended by Source
• 50.4 % of the total funds spent by the
court system were from the counties,
35 .2 % from the state, 14.2 % from
cities and towns and 0.3 % from federal
and private sources.
Justice
6.8%
Funds Expended by Court Level
• 68.0 % of total court expenditures were
in Superior Court (including probation),
14.2 % in municipal court, 11.0 % at the
appellate level ( including statew ide
administration) and 6.8 % in the justice
courts.
Superior
68.0%
The data contained in this report were compiled from
Supreme Court financial records, caseload reports from courts and
responses to the unaudited Supreme Court survey of expenditures
and revenues forfiscal year 1998 (July 1, 1997-June30, 1998).
All data received by the publication deadline are included,
but some information is preliminary.
Final counts will be published in the
1997-98 Arizona Courts Data Report early in 1999.
Published by
© 1998 Arizona Supreme Court
Arizona Supreme Court • Administrative Office of the Courts
1501 West Washington • Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3231
(602) 542-9300 • TDD (602) 542-9545
This publication can be provided in an alternative fonnat upon request to assist persons with disabilities.
www.supreme.state.az.us