Articles Posted in Weapon Crimes

If a police officer initiates a traffic stop for an alleged traffic violation in Arizona, the stop opens the door for the officer to find evidence of other possible criminal activity. In a recent case before an Arizona court, the defendant appealed his conviction for weapons misconduct, arguing that the officers that pulled him over for a traffic violation were actually just hoping to catch him in the act of additional criminal activity. Unfortunately, Arizona law affirmed that the defendant’s unlit license plate was reasonable grounds for the officers to a) stop the defendant and b) arrest him for unrelated criminal activity.

The Traffic Stop

The officers in this case were on patrol at a motorcycle rally, and they noticed that the defendant was wearing clothing consistent with a gang in Arizona. They approached the defendant, notifying him that he was operating a motorcycle without a license plate light. Upon additional conversation, the officers learned that the defendant was carrying a knife and a pistol. They later learned that he carried the pistol unlawfully. The defendant was both charged with and convicted of three counts of weapons misconduct.

The defendant took issue on appeal with the fact that the officers stopped him under the pretext of a missing license plate light when, in reality, they suspected additional criminal activity in the area and decided to act on those suspicions by finding a relatively small traffic code violation. This practice was unfair, said the defendant. It violated his constitutional rights, and his conviction should therefore be overturned.

Continue reading →

If you find yourself facing criminal charges in Arizona, understanding the appealable issues is crucial for exploring all possible avenues for relief. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently released a decision in an appeal filed by a man who appealed his convictions for armed robbery, felony murder, attempted armed robbery, conspiracy to commit armed robbery, and aggravated robbery. The legal opinion in this case sheds light on important aspects of the trial and appeals process in Arizona.

According to the facts discussed in the recently published appellate opinion, the defendant in the case was charged with robbery, conspiracy, and felony murder charges that stemmed from a conspiracy to rob a marijuana seller. Despite not directly participating in the robbery, the defendant received a life sentence, prompting an appeal. The court affirmed his convictions and sentences, emphasizing the importance of an attorney to address any arguable issues during the appeals process. The Court discussed several potentially appealable issues that were present in the case, although the conviction was ultimately affirmed, nonetheless.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel

The defendant’s counsel filed a brief under Anders v. California, certifying that no arguable question of law was found. However, he requested an extension to review trial transcripts, signaling potential issues with his legal representation. This highlights the importance of raising any arguable issues during the appeals process to ensure a fair defense.

Continue reading →

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant was granted a new trial after the court found that the trial court judge gave the jury misleading instructions. Originally, the defendant was found guilty of second-degree murder and disorderly conduct with a firearm. Once the court of appeals reached its decision, however, the guilty verdict was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the altercation occurred after a failed drug transaction between two individuals – one individual, a woman, had been promised heroin in exchange for $20. The second individual, a man, had taken the twenty dollars and failed to produce the drugs. In retaliation, the woman and her fiancé went to the man’s home to try and retrieve the drugs she had asked for. Since the man wasn’t home, the woman and her fiancé took one of his Bluetooth speakers to make up for the heroin.

Later, the man and a friend of his, the defendant in this case, came to find the woman and her fiancé. The four individuals then started fighting. The fiancé hit the defendant’s car with a rock and punched one of the car’s passengers. The defendant got out of the car and took out a gun. Later, the woman verbally threatened the defendant, and the defendant again retrieved his firearm. He shot and killed the woman’s fiancé, who was later pronounced dead at the scene.

Continue reading →

The Arizona Court of Appeals recently issued an opinion in a defendant’s appeal of his conviction and sentence for two cases, one of which involved an Arizona weapons offense. That case arose when police officers stopped the defendant when they noticed him riding his bicycle against traffic on a two-lane road. During the stop, police noticed a combat-style knife on his hip. When asked, the defendant admitted he was a felon, and the detectives arrested him. The court consolidated both of the defendant’s cases, and the defendant appealed, arguing that the court erred by denying his motion to suppress.

The defendant argues that police abused their discretion and improperly stopped him. He further contends that he was not violating a statute because he was not riding his bike on the roadway. Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover, the exclusionary rule prohibits the state from introducing evidence seized in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights. Generally, investigative stops are permitted if the stop is substantiated by “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.”

In this case, the officers testified that they drove by the defendant when they noticed him riding on the gravel, talking on a cell phone, and steering the bike with one hand. They stopped him after they noticed oncoming traffic swerving to avoid the defendant. The court found that the detectives possessed the requisite reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant. The court reasoned that the police believed that the defendant was obstructing the highway and creating a public hazard.

The Armed Career Criminals Act (ACCA) is a federal law that requires a minimum sentence of 15 years’ incarceration for certain individuals. Specifically, ACCA imposes the minimum sentence for anyone convicted of a gun crime, who has three or more “violent felony” convictions. The United States Supreme Court is expected to release its decision in a recent case answering the question of whether a crime involving a defendant’s “reckless” conduct meets the definition of a violent felony. This case could have broad implications in many Arizona gun cases.

Originally passed in 1984, the ACCA has since been interpreted by many courts. One of the most common issues in ACCA cases is whether the defendant’s prior convictions fit within the definition of a “violent felony.” If so, the defendant will face the minimum 15-year sentence. The ACCA defines a violent felony as one that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.”

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case requiring the Justices to determine if a crime involving reckless – and not intentional – conduct can qualify as a violent felony under the ACCA.