State v. Aguirre, No. 1 CA-SA 26-0176
Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One
July 28, 2026
JSH Attorney: Justin Ackerman
Arizona Court of Appeals Holds That Erroneous Conviction Compensation Claims Under A.R.S. § 13-4296 Are Exempt From the Notice of Claim Requirement
In 2021, a Maricopa County jury convicted Enrique Aguirre of discharging a firearm at a non-residence. The court of appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence, and on remand the superior court dismissed the charge with prejudice.
In January 2026, Aguirre filed an action under A.R.S. § 13-4296, a newly enacted pilot-program statute permitting individuals whose felony convictions are reversed or vacated to seek compensation from the State. The State moved to dismiss, arguing that Aguirre was required to first file a notice of claim (“NOC”) under A.R.S. § 12-821.01(A) within 180 days of accrual, as is generally required of anyone asserting claims against a public entity. The superior court denied the motion, holding that § 13-4296’s “[n]otwithstanding any other law” clause exempted Aguirre’s claim from the NOC requirement. The State petitioned for special action relief, and the court of appeals accepted jurisdiction.
The Court held that § 13-4296’s opening clause, “[n]otwithstanding any other law,” is unambiguous and, consistent with the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision in City of Phoenix v. Glenayre Electronics, Inc., applies broadly and inclusively to all other statutes that might otherwise govern how and when a claim may be brought—including § 12-821.01’s NOC requirement. Because nothing in § 13-4296 carves out an exception preserving the NOC requirement, reading the statute otherwise would render the “notwithstanding” clause meaningless as applied to § 12-821.01. The Court also found this reading consistent with the Legislature’s decision to create an entirely separate claims process under § 13-4296, complete with its own two-year limitations period, service requirements, and response deadlines running to the Attorney General rather than a public entity.
The Court rejected the State’s argument that “notwithstanding any other law” should apply only to statutes that are truly irreconcilable with one another, explaining that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of that clause in Glenayre contained no such limitation and that the clause appears throughout dozens of titles of the Arizona Revised Statutes. The Court also rejected the State’s reliance on Boyd v. State, distinguishing that case’s “notwithstanding any other law” clause—which modified language expressly referencing “claim presentation deadline[s]”—from § 13-4296’s clause, which instead displaces the entire ordinary process for suing the State and replaces it with a new one tailored to erroneous conviction claims. Finally, the Court explained that recognizing this exemption does not work an implied repeal of § 12-821.01, which remains fully applicable to all other claims against public entities; rather, § 13-4296 simply carves out a narrow statutory exception that coexists with the general NOC requirement.
Justin Ackerman represents clients in federal and state appellate matters in cases involving excessive force, wrongful death, personal injury, bad faith, and premises liability. After graduating as the valedictorian of his class from Phoenix School of Law, Justin worked as a law clerk for the Hon. Michael J. Brown in Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals. Following his clerkship, Justin has handled over 75 appeals, successfully arguing before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Arizona Supreme Court, and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Justin has spoken at many seminars on appellate preservation topics and is recognized as a Southwest Super Lawyers and Best Lawyers in the area of Appellate Practice.
jackerman@jshfirm.com | 602.263.4552 | jshfirm.com/jackerman