James E. Novak
Published on:

By

Arizona’s Court of Appeals has vacated a manslaughter sentence because the judge heard, and said he relied on, an AI-generated video of the victim at the sentencing hearing. The decision in State v. Horcasitas, a published Division One opinion filed September 30, 2026, arose from a road-rage shooting in Maricopa County. The court noted that no Arizona case had addressed an AI victim impact video before this one.

Division One affirmed the manslaughter conviction and found nothing wrong with the real footage of the victim that the family played. It rejected the AI-generated portion, which recreated the victim’s appearance and voice to deliver words his sister imagined he would say. Playing it was fundamental error that made the sentencing fundamentally unfair. James E. Novak has defended Arizona criminal charges in Maricopa County courts for more than 20 years. I read this opinion as a working guide to what a family can and cannot put in front of a sentencing judge.

What the Court of Appeals Decided in the Horcasitas Case

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Last updated September 29, 2026 · Reviewed by James E. Novak

Arizona’s record-sealing statute gained a new category on September 12, 2026. A conviction in that category can now be sealed with no waiting period at all. House Bill 2198, signed on June 4, 2026, added petty offenses to the list in A.R.S. § 13-911(E) that sets how long a person must wait before asking a court to seal a record.

A petty offense is an offense that carries a fine as its only authorized sentence, and a person convicted of one can now petition as soon as the sentence is complete. James E. Novak has handled Arizona criminal defense cases in Maricopa County for more than 20 years. The sealing question usually reaches me years after a case ends. A background check turns up something the client thought was long gone.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Last updated August 31, 2026 · Reviewed by James E. Novak

Arizona has created a way for a person convicted of a low-level felony to have that conviction re-entered as a class 1 misdemeanor. House Bill 2749, signed on June 4, 2026, adds section 13-604.01 to the criminal code, and the section takes effect on September 12, 2026. It also repeals itself after September 30, 2028, which gives the remedy a two-year life unless the Legislature extends it.

The new section lets a court enter judgment of conviction for a class 1 misdemeanor on a class 4, 5, or 6 felony that did not involve a dangerous offense, where the court makes five specific findings. James E. Novak has defended Arizona felony charges in Maricopa County for more than 20 years, and I have had a version of this conversation with clients many times. Until now the answer was the same every time. The felony stayed a felony.

What Section 13-604.01 Lets a Court Do

A misdemeanor designation is a court order replacing a felony judgment of conviction with a judgment for a class 1 misdemeanor on the same offense. Section 13-604.01 operates notwithstanding any other provision of title 13, which is what gives it reach over the ordinary classification rules. The court is not resentencing and not vacating anything. It is entering a judgment of conviction for a class 1 misdemeanor in place of the felony judgment, which changes what the record says the person was convicted of.

The distinction matters because the practical weight of an old low-level felony is rarely the sentence, which has long since been served. It is the classification itself, showing up on background checks, licensing applications, and rental screening years after the case closed. Moving a conviction into the misdemeanor column changes the answer to a question that gets asked constantly.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last updated July 30, 2026 · Reviewed by James Novak

A right-to-counsel violation before a blood draw does not automatically force Arizona courts to suppress the results or dismiss the case. Division One of the Arizona Court of Appeals confirmed that rule on July 24, 2026, in State v. Stempel, affirming a conviction even though the trial court had already found the defendant’s right to counsel was violated before a second, warrant-based blood draw.

The court explained that suppression requires a real connection between the violation and the evidence obtained, not just the violation itself. Because the second blood draw came from an independently obtained search warrant rather than anything the defendant said or agreed to after being denied access to counsel, the appellate court found no such connection and upheld the decision to admit it, the same evidentiary fight that comes up throughout Arizona DUI defense whenever a blood or breath test is challenged.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Just standing near a crime is not a crime. But a recent Arizona Court of Appeals ruling shows that the so-called “mere presence” defense has real limits — and that the standard burglary jury instructions may already cover it. The Law Office of James E. Novak defends burglary and theft cases across Maricopa County, and this decision shapes how those defenses play out in court. Learn more about your Arizona criminal defense options.

What Did the Arizona Court of Appeals Decide?

In State v. Aguirre, No. 1 CA-CR 25-0338, decided April 22, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed a third-degree burglary conviction out of Maricopa County Superior Court. The defendant was caught on a Phoenix parking garage roof with two other men. One had a crowbar. Another had a bolt cutter. Cut copper wire was strewn nearby. He told officers he was hired to be a “lookout.”

On appeal, he argued the trial judge should have given the jury a “mere presence” instruction on its own — even though the defense never asked for one. The court rejected that argument and affirmed his 10-year prison sentence as a repeat offender.

The court held that when jurors are properly told the State must prove specific intent under A.R.S. § 13-1506 and A.R.S. § 13-301 (accomplice liability), a separate mere presence instruction is arguably redundant. No prior Arizona case has ever found this kind of omission to be fundamental error.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A missing witness does not automatically end a criminal case, but it can take away the state’s ability to tell its story through someone else. The Law Office of James E. Novak represents people facing charges in Phoenix, AZ, and a recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision, State v. Johnson, shows how confrontation rules can block “testimonial” statements when the speaker never takes the stand. In Phoenix, this issue shows up most in domestic violence cases that rely on medical records, advocacy-center exams, and a case agent repeating what someone said. In Arizona, the Confrontation Clause can limit what the jury hears when the state tries to substitute paperwork and secondhand testimony for live cross-examination.

What to Do in the Next 24 to 72 Hours if the Case Is Built on Statements

Preserve proof before it disappears. Save texts, call logs, photos, location data, and any messages that show context, timing, and who was present. Do not contact the complaining witness or their family, even if you think contact would “fix” things. In Phoenix, contact can be framed as intimidation or a release-condition violation. In Maricopa County, no-contact orders can start early and get enforced strictly. Recorded jail calls and casual texts can also become evidence.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Arizona’s rape shield law blocks most evidence of a victim’s sexual history from being used at trial. But the law contains exceptions—including one for evidence showing the “source or origin” of “trauma.” In State v. Hernandez, decided March 5, 2026, the Arizona Court of Appeals (Division One) ruled that this trauma exception covers only physical injury—not emotional or psychological harm. This published opinion narrows the defense tools available in sex crime cases across Maricopa County and the rest of the state. If you are facing sex crime charges in the Phoenix area, James Novak is a former prosecutor who understands how evidentiary rulings like this one shape the defense.

What Did the Court Decide?

The Court of Appeals accepted a special action brought by the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office and reversed a Superior Court ruling. The case involved Jose Hernandez, who was charged with child molestation. The alleged victim—a child—reported being molested not only by Hernandez, but also by two other family members on separate occasions.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

If you have a criminal case in Phoenix, the pretrial conference is usually the first court date where your case can move in a meaningful way. The Law Office of James E. Novak uses this hearing to force clarity on the evidence, lock in deadlines, and position the case for dismissal, reduction, or trial-ready motion practice. In Arizona, a prosecutor still must prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, and the pretrial conference is where a good defense starts pressing that burden with structure.

Why This Hearing Matters More Than People Expect

Most people picture court as “trial or no trial.” Pretrial is where the real work happens. In Maricopa County, the judge uses this hearing to confirm where the case stands and to set the schedule that controls what happens next. Your defense uses it to expose weak proof, demand missing discovery, and tee up motions that can limit or exclude evidence.

In Arizona, a pretrial conference is not just a status check. In Phoenix, it is a leverage moment because it forces the state to show how ready it really is. A prosecutor still must prove admissibility before a jury can hear statements or see seized evidence.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

People often assume a felony conviction automatically blocks firearm possession forever. Arizona law does not always work that way. For some first-time, non-dangerous, non-serious felony convictions, firearm rights can be automatically restored once probation ends, provided restitution is paid. A recent Arizona Court of Appeals decision, State v. Begay, confirms that the key date is the end of probation, not when the offense occurred or when sentencing occurred.

That detail matters in everyday life. Many prohibited possessor cases begin with a routine traffic stop, a call for service, or a search unrelated to the issue. If your rights are restored by operation of law, the legal status at the moment of possession becomes the center of the case.

Arizona Firearm Rights Restoration After Felony Probation

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

What “Domestic Violence” Means Under Arizona Law

In Arizona, domestic violence is not a stand-alone crime. It is a tag that can attach to other charges like assault, criminal damage, disorderly conduct, or harassment when the parties have a qualifying relationship. Qualifying relationships include spouses, former partners, people who share a child, household members, and certain dating relationships. The domestic violence tag increases potential penalties and can affect rights involving firearms and housing.

The Immediate Aftermath: Arrest, Conditions of Release, and Contact Rules

Continue reading →
Contact Information
Law Office of James Novak, PLLC
4500 S Lakeshore Dr #352
Tempe, AZ 85282
Phone: (480) 413-1499Text: (602) 908-8123

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2017 – 2026, The Law Office of James E. Novak
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design