Articles Posted in Sentencing Issues

Published on:

By

Under Arizona law, courts are required to explain certain sentencing decisions on the record and in the presence of parties. This explanation helps defendants understand the nature of their sentences, and it holds the court accountable for making fair decisions. A recent case before the Supreme Court of Arizona clarified what happens when courts fail to explain their sentencing decision on the record, creating a framework for cases moving forward.

The Sentencing Court’s Obligations Under Arizona Law

When a court decides the length and nature of a defendant’s sentence, that court has an obligation to explain its determination. Arizona law specifically says that the trial court must (1) state the factors it considered, and (2) articulate how those factors led to the sentencing decision. A judge will typically conduct this explanation orally, dictating the reasons in open court. If and when the defendant appeals the trial court’s decision, the appellate court then has a clear record of the decision and reasoning.

Consequences for the Sentencing Court’s Failure to Explain

In its May 2024 opinion, the Supreme Court of Arizona decided what must happen when a trial court fails to explain its sentencing decision. Once a party establishes that the trial court failed to meet its burden, the appellate court should put its subsequent decision on hold. The appellate court should then send the case back down to the trial court so that the judge can correct the error and explain the decision. Only after this explanation happens may the defendant’s appeal proceed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Arizona residents who have been convicted of a felony criminal offense are automatically restricted from owning firearms after their conviction is entered. Arizona law allows restricted persons to later petition the court to set aside their felony convictions and restore the right to own firearms. Felons with non-dangerous felony convictions can ask the court to set aside the conviction if all of the incarceration and probation conditions have been satisfied, and the appellant has been discharged by the court. An Arizona woman recently had her application to set aside two felony convictions denied by the court, and the Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the lower ruling.

According to the facts discussed in a recently published appellate opinion affecting the ruling of the court, the appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and felony harassment based on conduct that occurred in 2009. As part of the plea agreement, the court noted the two felony charges as “non-dangerous” offenses. After completing her probation, the appellant petitioned the court to set aside her convictions and restore her firearm ownership rights. The trial court denied the appellant’s request, ruling that while the requirements were met for the court to consider setting aside the convictions, the court was concerned by the nature of the crimes, and was exercising its discretion by denying the appellant’s request.

The woman appealed the trial court’s denial of her motion to set aside the conviction to the Arizona Court of Appeals. The appellant argued that the plea documentation stating her crimes were “non-dangerous” compelled the court to set aside her convictions. The Court of Appeals disagreed, ruling that while “dangerous crimes” are absolutely ineligible to be set aside for this purpose, crimes defined as “non-dangerous” may still justifiably concern the court, and result in a legally acceptable denial of a motion to restore firearm ownership rights. Because the lower court made clear findings on the record that the appellant’s use of firearms in committing the initial crimes was concerning, and warranted denial of her motion, the appellate court chose not to disturb the lower court’s discretion. As a result of the two court rulings, the appellant will not be permitted to purchase or own firearms.

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

Restitution is when a court orders a defendant to pay a crime victim for their financial losses related to the crime. Unlike civil law, restitution is typically limited to the costs that the victim actually incurred. In a recent Arizona murder case, the state’s high court discussed the constitutional limits on the court’s ability to place a cap on the amount of restitution in a criminal case absent the victim’s consent. However, unlike the vast majority of criminal cases, this case discussed the crime victim’s constitutional rights, rather than the defendant. Of course, the court’s decision impacts criminal defendants in that it increases the amount of potential restitution they could be forced to pay.

The Facts of the Case

A detailed recitation of the fact is not necessary to fully understand the import of the court’s opinion. However, in summary, three defendants were charged with abusing and killing a younger family member. All three defendants plead guilty to a lesser offense. As a part of the plea agreement, the defendant would pay the victim’s family restitution. However, under the terms of the plea agreement, the maximum amount of restitution is limited to $500,000. The victim’s family objected to the cap on restitution, but the court upheld the cap and proceeded with the pleas. The victim’s family appealed the lower court’s decision.

On appeal, the court first addressed the state’s argument that the court should wait to see if the cap on restitution actually limited the recovery amount. However, the court rejected this argument, noting that there is no requirement for caps on restitution.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Earlier this year, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona drug case discussing whether the defendant was eligible for probation under Arizona Revised Statute section 13-901.01. Section 13-901.01 is titled “Probation for persons convicted of possession or use of controlled substances or drug paraphernalia,” and states that “any person who is convicted of the personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia is eligible for probation.”

While section 13-901.01 provides a general rule that a person convicted of a possessory drug offense is eligible for probation, the statute outlines several exceptions. The question in this case was whether the defendant was eligible for probation despite his prior convictions. Under section 13-901.01, a person is not eligible for probation if they have three prior convictions for personal possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia.

According to the court’s opinion, the defendant was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia in 1996, and solicitation to sell a narcotic drug in 2006. In 2017, the defendant was arrested and convicted for several drug offenses.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Earlier this month, a state appellate court issued a written opinion in an Arizona homicide case discussing the state’s challenge to the defendant’s sentence. The state claimed that the trial court failed to follow the law when it sentenced the defendant to “life without possibility of parole for twenty-five years.” However, the court held that because the state failed to raise the issue in a timely manner, it was precluded from raising it after the defendant sought parole after having served 24 years. As a result, although the defendant’s sentence was illegally lenient, he was entitled to parole after serving 25 years in custody.

The defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder for a killing that took place in 1995. At sentencing, the trial court sentenced the defendant to “life without possibility of parole for twenty-five years,” to be followed by a period of “community supervision.” However, at the time, there was a law on the books that prohibited defendants who were convicted of first-degree murder from being eligible for parole. At the time of the defendant’s sentencing, the prosecution did not object, nor did it appeal the sentence.

After the defendant served 24 years in custody, he sought parole. The defendant was told he was not eligible for parole, and the defendant sued the Arizona State Department of Corrections. The state then sought a determination as to whether the defendant was eligible for parole.

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 – 2024, The Law Office of James E. Novak
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design