Articles Posted in Appeals

Published on:

By

In June 2025, the Arizona Court of Appeals issued a detailed decision that addresses several trial rights crucial to a strong criminal defense. The court in State v. Vallejo upheld a conviction in a Pima County case, but not without clarifying how trial judges should handle voir dire, defense witnesses, and confession evidence. Even though the appeal did not result in a reversal, the opinion offers critical guidance for anyone facing charges in Arizona.

If you have been accused of a crime in Arizona, your future may depend on what happens during jury selection, what evidence the court admits, and whether your defense is given a full opportunity to present its case. These procedural rulings carry weight far beyond one courtroom. Understanding them can help protect your rights from the moment charges are filed.

Voir Dire Challenges Require Careful Record and Strategy

One key issue in the case involved jury selection. The accused argued that the trial court failed to question jurors thoroughly about possible bias. Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 18.5 grants judges broad discretion during voir dire, but that discretion must still respect the right to an impartial jury. The Court of Appeals examined the record and found that, although some questions could have gone further, the process overall met constitutional standards.

This part of the opinion reinforces the importance of being strategic and specific when questioning jurors. Defense lawyers must be prepared to raise concerns early and on the record. Without a documented objection or request for additional voir dire, it becomes difficult to argue on appeal that jurors were not properly vetted for fairness.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

If you were convicted of a felony in Phoenix and are considering filing for post-conviction relief, a recent Arizona Court of Appeals ruling makes one thing clear. Once the court rules on your petition, your opportunity to revise it is limited. After the initial decision, you must act quickly and with strong justification if you want to change your petition. But even better is to avoid the need for a post-conviction proceeding by handling the case right the first time around.

Court Rejects Effort to Amend Years After Sentencing

The petitioner in this case had been found guilty of serious offenses, including second-degree murder, kidnapping, and burglary. His attorney presented a guilty except insane defense under Arizona law. The jury returned mixed verdicts. He was sentenced to decades in prison, including life for one of the murder counts.

After losing his appeal, the defendant filed a timely petition for post-conviction relief. He argued that his trial attorney failed him by not challenging the state’s timeline and by neglecting to question key witnesses. His attorney, he claimed, should not have moved forward with the mental health defense without thoroughly investigating the facts.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

What happens when a jury has to consider inconsistent evidence during trial? Generally, it is up to the jury to determine which evidence is believable and which evidence is not. In a June 2024 case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the higher court determined that even though there were inconsistencies in the trial court record, the inconsistencies were not enough to reverse a defendant’s conviction and resulting sentence for aggravated assault.

Inconsistencies in Question

The trial for this case related to an aggravated assault that happened at an outdoor birthday party. Two men at the party got into an altercation once one of the men made unwanted sexual advances toward the second man’s girlfriend. The second man attacked, and the first man sustained several injuries from the altercation. Police arrived at the party and arrested the person who became the defendant in this case.

There were several witnesses to the assault, and they testified during trial. The first witness said that the defendant kicked the victim while he was unconscious. Another said that she did not see the defendant kick or hit the victim after the victim was already on the ground. Whether the defendant assaulted the victim after he fell to the ground was important because this “continuous” conduct would take the crime from assault to aggravated assault.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant challenged his guilty verdict based on the trial court’s definition of the word “education.” The case centered on the defendant’s insistence that his scattering dead body parts in public areas was not a crime, but instead was an attempt to educate the public. The jury disagreed, and the higher court ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case worked for a body donation center in Washington. He moved to Arizona, and he decided to take several human body parts along with him when he moved. Oddly, the man then scattered the body parts in the Arizona desert. This was important, the defendant later claimed, because he needed to educate passersby on public safety issues. He did not, however, offer a coherent statement about how the body parts would achieve his stated purpose.

Pedestrians found the body parts, and investigators traced them back to the defendant’s previous place of work, which they then back to the defendant himself. The defendant was charged with abandonment and concealment of a dead body. He pled not guilty, but a jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 2.5 years in prison. He promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the defendant asked the higher court to reconsider his convictions for theft and unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. The defendant was originally found guilty after he stole a truck and tried to escape from the officers who found him several miles from the truck owner’s home. On appeal, the higher court reviewed the trial record and found no error in the lower court’s proceedings. The court affirmed the convictions and kept the defendant’s sentences in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the owner of a 2005 Dodge Ram came home one evening to notice that his truck had been stolen from his driveway. The man had previously put a Lo-Jack system in his truck, which allowed him to track the vehicle if it were ever stolen. He activated the system and gave the relevant information to the police with the hopes of eventually finding the vehicle.

Soon, officers located the vehicle at a nearby convenience store. They went to the store and found the car by a gas tank. The defendant was in the front of the car, and the defendant’s cousin was filling one of the tires up with air. When an officer approached the truck with a gun drawn, the defendant pulled away and drove off. Officers followed the defendant to his home.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent opinion in an Arizona negligent homicide case, the defendant’s request for a lesser sentence was denied. After having been found guilty of homicide in 2016, the defendant was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment. The defendant appealed this sentence, arguing that it was unfair for the court to take two of his previous convictions into account when calculating his sentence. The court disagreed, citing a law that allows courts to consider previous offenses when they have happened within five years of the present, relevant offense. The court thus affirmed the defendant’s sentence.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant went to the victim’s home on November 16, 2016. Upon finding the victim outside, the defendant used a cement block to severely injure him. Four days later, on November 20, 2016, the victim died from his injuries. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of negligent homicide.

After the jury found the defendant guilty, it was the court’s job to sentence the defendant. While embarking on this process, the court decided to use two of the defendant’s prior convictions – possession of narcotic drugs for sale and a drug paraphernalia violation – to decide the amount of time the defendant should be required to serve. Because of these prior convictions, the court viewed the defendant as having committed three offenses instead of just one offense. The court then sentenced the defendant to nine years’ imprisonment.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The law provides Arizona defendants with certain avenues of relief after a criminal conviction. While there are restrictions regarding what types of cases and issues are appealable, many defendants can challenge a conviction or sentence. If one has completed their sentence, they may be eligible to restore their civil rights by setting aside a criminal conviction. Appeals are much more complicated than criminal trials, and the proceedings require a comprehensive understanding of complex statutory and procedural rules.

The main types of conviction-review mechanisms are post-conviction relief and direct appeals. Once a court convicts and sentences a party, a defendant has the right to file a motion for post-conviction relief. These petitions are filed with the same trial court that issued the initial ruling. The Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure (ARCP) designate the appealable issues permitted in these petitions. Specifically, Rule 32 provides an avenue for relief after the defendant has been found guilty or sentenced at a probation violation proceeding. Moreover, Rule 33 pertains to situations where a defendant pled guilty. The majority of these petitions assert ineffective assistance of counsel claims.

For instance, the Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in a defendant’s petition to review a trial court’s order dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief. The appeal arose after a jury trial convicted the defendant of aggravated domestic violence, criminal damage, and influencing a witness in two consolidated cases. The defendant argued that his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the consolidation.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

If an Arizona criminal trial ends up in a conviction, the defendant is entitled to an appeal to review any and all alleged legal errors that were made by the court during the trial. While the right to an appeal is automatic, there is not necessarily a corresponding right for the appellate court to hear every issue that the defendant raises on appeal. Typically, to preserve an issue for appeal, the defendant must lodge an appropriate objection during the trial allowing the trial judge to correct the alleged error. If a defendant fails to make an objection to a judge’s legal decision during the trial, they may be precluded from raising the issue on appeal.

Importantly, not every issue needs to be objected to in order to preserve a defendants’ appellate rights. For example, a defendant can always challenge the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, even if the issue was not raised in a post-trial motion. However, most other potential issues, including evidentiary issues and weight-of-the-evidence issues, must be raised to be preserved. If an issue is not preserved, an appellate court can still review the record for plain error; however, this is an exceedingly difficult standard to meet.

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear argument on a case involving the purported waiver of a defendant’s right to challenge the reasonableness of his sentence. In that case, the defendant was convicted of a federal drug crime and sentenced to 24 months of incarceration to be followed by a period of supervised release. While on supervised release, the defendant was arrested for another drug case. The defendant was convicted of the second drug offense, which was a violation of his supervised released. The defendant conceded that he was in violation of his supervised release, and asked the court for a concurrent 12-month sentence. However, the court sentenced the defendant to a consecutive 12-month term of imprisonment.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Under common law, a burglary was defined as the breaking and entering of a dwelling of another at night with an intent to commit a felony therein. Over the years, state legislatures have refined the definition of burglary. For the most part, states have eliminated the requirement that the breaking and entering occur at night, and have added language making it a burglary to unlawfully remain on another’s property with the intent to commit a crime.

Arizona has three burglary statutes.

  • Burglary in the third degree: Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.
Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Last month, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in a case that limits the government’s ability to seize the assets of those convicted of crimes. Typically, when someone is arrested for an Arizona crime, any assets that are potentially evidence will be seized. For example, it is common that a vehicle used to transport drugs will be seized as potential evidence. In the event that the defendant is found guilty, the government can proceed with a civil forfeiture claim in an attempt to keep whatever assets were seized.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant pleaded guilty to dealing in a controlled substance. When the defendant was arrested, he was driving a Land Rover that he had recently purchased for $42,000 with the proceeds from a life insurance policy.

The defendant was sentenced to one year of house arrest, followed by five years’ probation. The defendant was also fined $1,203. After the defendant was convicted, the state moved for civil forfeiture of the Land Rover. The trial court denied the government’s claim, noting that the value of the Land Rover was over four times the maximum fine for the crime for which the defendant was convicted. Thus, the court held that the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against excessive fines precluded the government from taking ownership of the vehicle.

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

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

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 – 2025, The Law Office of James E. Novak
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design