James E. Novak
Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona drug crime decision, the defendant was convicted of transporting a dangerous drug for sale, possessing a dangerous drug, possessing a dangerous drug for sale, possessing drug paraphernalia, and possessing a deadly weapon while committing a felony drug offense. He was sentenced to presumptive, minimum, and concurrent prison terms. The longest of these was five years.

On appeal, he argued that the trial court incorrectly denied his motion to suppress, his convictions for transporting and possessing dangerous drugs violated the double jeopardy rule, and the court had miscalculated his entitlement to pre-sentence incarceration credit.

The case arose when a DEA agent got involved in a group surveillance of a stash house in a Tucson neighborhood that had a reputation for drug trafficking. The police saw two cars with out-of-state license plates involved in suspicious behavior at a convenience store. People with those license plates didn’t come there frequently. There was a lot of back and forth activity between the vehicles, and they left at the same time, which is a common sign of prohibited drug activity.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Recently, an Arizona appellate court considered an Arizona drug crime conviction for possession of narcotics for sale and possession of dangerous drugs for sale. The convictions were for class 2 felonies under A.R.S. §§ 13-3407 and 13-3408. The defendant argued that the fines imposed were unconstitutionally applied to him and that it was improper for the trial court not to consider his financial status when fining him.

The case arose when cops seized about 10 pounds of methamphetamine and under one pound of cocaine from the defendant’s home in Phoenix. The prosecution introduced evidence at trial to show that the value of the drugs seized was $8,000-10,000 for the cocaine and $30,000 for the meth. The defendant didn’t object to the prosecution’s evidence and didn’t offer any other evidence about the seized drugs’ worth. He was found guilty.

Under A.R.S. § 13-3407(H), the minimum he could be fined for possession of dangerous drugs was the greater of $1,000 or three times the value of the dangerous drugs as decided by the court. The judge had no discretion to suspend the fines. Under A.R.S. § 13-3408(F), the minimum he could be fined for narcotic drug possession was the greater of $2,000 or three times the value of the narcotics involved. The cap on fines was $150,000.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona aggravated assault case, the plaintiff appealed convictions and sentences for aggravated assault and false reporting. For two days in 2015, the victim and the defendant, as well as their girlfriends, drank alcohol in an empty lot. Early on the second morning, the defendant stabbed the victim in the back three times. The victim got the knife away, and the defendant fled. The victim had to undergo an operation for a punctured lung and was hospitalized for eight days.

The police found the defendant walking down the road after learning of the stabbing. When they asked him for an ID, he gave them false names and birthdates. He later told them he’d been knocked out by a black man in a hoodie and denied that he’d stabbed anybody. The victim advised the police that he was stabbed by “J.J.,” which was a nickname the defendant gave them. The defendant was arrested for the stabbing.

Before the trial, the defendant was recorded calling a woman from jail, asking whether the victim planned to testify. He told her the victim would be a snitch if he testified. The caller told him that she’d talked to the victim and that the victim had decided not to pursue charges, although he initially was going to pursue them. The defendant told the woman that the victim would be known as a rat for testifying. The woman said that the victim had texted her he would drop the case, and the defendant told her the steps the victim needed to take to get the charges dropped.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona marijuana case, the defendant appealed after being convicted of selling marijuana and weapons misconduct. The case arose when two detectives had a confidential informant conduct a controlled buy. The detective searched the informant to make sure he didn’t have money, drugs, or paraphernalia. The detectives photographed a set of $20 bills to be used to purchase drugs and set up the informant with a recording device.

They followed the informant in cars to the target’s home. After going in, the informant returned to his car, accompanied by the target and a woman. The three went to the gas station, and the detectives followed. The target got out and went up to a white car that was parked at the gas station. He got inside and then went back to the informant’s car. They returned to the home, followed by the police. The informant dropped off the target and passenger. He met the detectives to be debriefed and searched. The detectives found a plastic baggie containing marijuana.

Meanwhile, a detective asked a patrol officer to follow the white car and stop it if there was any traffic violation. The patrol officer followed the car after it left the gas station and pulled him over for speeding. The patrol officer saw there was a handgun on the seat, and it was in a firing position. He asked the driver for the gun, which the driver gave him. He also smelled marijuana, and the driver admitted she had marijuana in a paper bag. She consented to a search. Inside, there were bags of marijuana and brownies and a set of $20 bills. She had a medical marijuana card, so the officer determined there was no basis to believe she’d broken a drug law. The officer photographed the money and drugs before letting her leave.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona assault case, a man appealed after being convicted of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, shoplifting, and not giving the police a truthful name when he was lawfully detained. The case arose when two cops responded to a department store’s call about a shoplifting suspect who refused to cooperate. When asked why he was causing trouble, the defendant told the cops he was “trouble” and wouldn’t give them his name. He called himself a chief, clenched his fists, and held his hands up in a gesture of wanting to fight. The cops told him he had to give his name under the law, but he refused.

He also wouldn’t comply with his arrest and wouldn’t put his hands behind his back. When the cops took his wrists, he jerked away and fled for the door. He threw a punch. Eventually a cop had to taser him, and then the other cop could cuff him. The surveillance cameras recorded their fight.

Before the trial began, the defendant made a motion to compel disclosure of several contacts with two police officers whom the prosecutor had identified would testify about their opinions. One expert didn’t testify at trial, but the other did. The defendant asked for an email from the prosecutor that asked the expert who didn’t testify to produce a supplemental report on the use of force. With regard to the expert who would testify at trial, the defendant asked for an email from the police to the expert that would ask him to create a supplemental report. The court denied the defendant’s motion for these documents and other emails between the prosecutor and expert witness on the ground that they were work product.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona appellate case, a defendant appealed from his conviction and sentences for possession of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was arrested in 2014 after being found in possession of meth in a plastic bag. The police had responded to a call about a suspicious man going into yards and knocking on doors. The man was reported to be Hispanic and in his 30s.

The defendant matched the description of a 911 call and was located a short distance away behind a retaining wall on private property. He identified himself, and the officer asked if he had anything he wasn’t supposed to have, like drugs or guns. He answered yes and was ordered to stop and place his hands on his head. He took his hand out of his pocket. The officer saw a plastic baggie sticking out. When he took it out, he saw it held a substance that looked like meth.

The meth was in the baggie, which was also in another baggie. He was arrested and searched, and the officers found a plastic baggie that held syringes. He claimed this was for insulin for a medical condition, which he stated wasn’t diabetes. He was indicted for possessing a dangerous drug (a violation of A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(1), (B)) and for possession of drug paraphernalia (a violation of A.R.S. § 13-3415(A), (F)(2)).

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent appellate case based on an Arizona drug crime prosecution, an Arizona Court of Appeals considered a conviction for possession of a dangerous drug. A police officer had been conducting surveillance on a residence when a blue car approached. The car’s passenger entered the home and then went back to the car two times. Each time, he was carrying something in his hands. Another officer followed him after he left the home, and he stopped the car for a traffic violation.

The officer got identification from the driver of the car and a passenger. He checked for warrants, and there were none. Other officers came to the scene, and one of the officer’s drug detection dogs conducted a sniff of the outside of the car.

The officers asked the driver and the passenger to get out of the car. The officer asked the passenger if he had weapons. When the officer conducted a pat-down of the passenger’s waist to make sure he didn’t have weapons, the passenger ran away. He took off his jacket and dropped it while running. The officer followed and arrested him.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent unpublished Arizona DUI decision, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, DUI, and extreme DUI. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment for the murder charge. His DUI sentence was suspended, and he was put on two five-year probation terms set to start after he served his prison sentence.

The case arose shortly after 2:00 a.m. in 2014 when the defendant drove his car at between 73 mph and 93 mph into the back of the victim’s car at an intersection where the speed limit was 35 mph and there was a stop sign, which caused the victim to die of multiple blunt force injuries. The defendant had been drinking vodka at his friend’s apartment about a mile from the accident, and he couldn’t remember what happened between drinking the first drink and sitting at the accident scene.

The officer who was dispatched saw that the defendant was flushed with watery eyes and that his breath smelled like alcohol. Several officers saw six out of six cues on a field sobriety test, and when they told the defendant he would be charged with second-degree murder, he laughed and said okay. His alcohol level was tested three times and averaged .223.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent, unpublished Arizona appellate case, a woman was convicted of disorderly conduct and misdemeanor criminal damage. She was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment, and the longer term was 2.25 years.

According to the prosecution, the case arose when the defendant met the father of her child in a parking lot to give him their child. When the father drove up with a woman, the defendant smashed in a window of the car and hit the woman in the face. When the woman got out of the car, the defendant hit her again. The prosecution claimed that she’d committed a dangerous offense in that she’d threatened to discharge or shown a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument. A detective testified to the grand jury that the defendant had swung a baseball bat to break the window and then swung the bat at the victim’s arm. The defendant told detectives that the victim had gotten out of the car and threatened her, and this was the reason she got the bat.

At trial, the defendant objected to a jury instruction that stated aggravated assault was based on a reasonable apprehension of assault. Ultimately, the court allowed the prosecution to move forward under theories of assault and reasonable apprehension of assault, but it didn’t give the preliminary jury instruction. It reasoned that if someone were in the car, and somebody broke the window of the car, the person inside the car would be in reasonable apprehension of being hurt.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona appellate case, the defendant appealed his conviction for domestic violence, dangerous offenses, Class 3 felonies, and two counts of aggravated assault. He argued that it was a mistake for the court to admit a 911 call recorded by a victim.

The case arose in 2014 when the defendant got involved in a domestic violence quarrel with his wife. He pointed a gun at her and her mother. The mother called 911, and during the call they discussed what was happening. The mother said her daughter’s husband was threatening them with a gun that he’d just put down during her visit. The mother couldn’t be found to testify at trial.

The defendant tried to preclude evidence of the 911 recording on the grounds that it was made to a law enforcement officer and was used to prove past events that would be relevant to a later criminal prosecution. The lower court denied the defendant’s motion in limine and found that the 911 call could be admitted under the excited utterance exception to the rule against hearsay evidence under Arizona Rules of Evidence 803(2). The court found the mother’s comments weren’t testimonial for the purposes of the Confrontation Clause.

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