James E. Novak
Published on:

By

In the U.S. generally and in Arizona specifically, every defendant has the right to be free from prosecution for the same offense multiple times. Sometimes, it is easy for a court to determine when a case violates this right. Other times, it is not so straightforward. In a recent case before the Arizona Supreme Court, it was unclear whether the defendant’s three separate convictions should have been prosecuted one conviction instead. The court ultimately used the nature of the offense to determine that the criminal activity should have been taken as one offense instead of three separate offenses. This was a victory for the defendant, whose sentence will be reduced as a result.

Facts of the Case

In the case before the Arizona Supreme Court, investigators began a conversation with the defendant after he posted ads on a website designed to facilitate sexual encounters. The investigators posed as a thirteen-year-old girl, and the defendant promptly began sending explicit messages to the “girl.” The two individuals arranged a meet up. During the three days between when the pair arranged the meet up and the date of the meet up, the defendant and the “girl” exchanged approximately 1,000 text messages, many of them very explicit in nature.

When the defendant arrived at the agreed-upon place, police officers arrested him. The State charged him with three counts of luring a minor under the age of fifteen for sexual exploitation. A jury found the defendant guilty, and the trial court sentenced him to thirty-one years in prison. This sentence was based on three distinct violations of Arizona law, given that the defendant sent explicit and luring messages on three separate days leading up to the supposed meet-up.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Under Arizona law, a court is prohibited from reopening questions decided in the same case by the same court. Similarly, once a court issues a final judgment in a case, the same parties cannot re-litigate the issue in future proceedings. Essentially, this means that if a court finds you not guilty of a specific crime, the State cannot try you for the same offense down the road. The court’s ruling is final, and this law prohibits defendants from getting prosecuted multiple times for the same offense.

In a recent case, however, the court decided that the prosecution was entitled to reuse evidence from a 2012 case in its 2018 case. The case was centered on a defendant’s personal laptop, which contained photos of nude children. In 2012, when the defendant was first charged with sexual exploitation of a minor, he filed a motion to suppress the incriminating evidence, which the trial court granted. Because there was no incriminating evidence against the defendant, then, the court dismissed the charges.

Six years later, the State re-charged the defendant with the same crime, sexual exploitation of a minor. The defendant again filed a motion to suppress, but this time, the court denied the motion. The case went to trial, and a jury found the defendant guilty as charged. On appeal, the defendant took issue with the fact that the court allowed the prosecution to re-charge him using the same evidence, six years later.

Continue reading →
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

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 general, when an officer puts a suspect under custodial interrogation, the officer must give the suspect Miranda warnings. That is, the officer is required by law to tell the suspect that he has the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. In some limited exceptions, though, these warnings are not necessary.

A recent case out of the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, highlights such an exception. In this case, an officer stopped the defendant on an unrelated charge. He removed one firearm from the defendant’s car. Before the defendant left, the officer learned that the defendant was a suspect in an armed robbery and aggravated assault case. The officer then re-approached the defendant, asking if he had an additional weapon in the vehicle. At that point, the defendant replied that he did have a gun in the car.

Later, the State indicted the defendant on armed robbery, aggravated assault, and misconduct involving weapons. The defendant filed a motion to suppress the weaponry evidence, arguing that the officer asked about the second weapon before providing the necessary Miranda warnings.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant and the government agreed that the trial court should have granted the defendant certain rights that it unrightfully denied her. Both the defendant and the government indicated this error in their filings, and the appellate court reviewed the record to see if it, too, agreed that the trial court should have granted the defendant several rights that it denied her. The court ultimately granted the defendant’s request, giving her the right to own a firearm.

Overall, this case serves as a reminder that having thorough counsel for a criminal case can make all of the difference; by hiring an attorney that can catch mistakes like the one this defendant’s counsel caught, you can give yourself the best possible chance of retaining and restoring your freedoms that might otherwise be at risk.

Basis for the Appeal

The law in Arizona says that after a first-time felony offender finishes probation, he or she is entitled to the restoration of his or her civil rights. Here, the defendant was a first-time felony offender convicted of attempted aggravated assault and endangerment. She completed her required three years of probation. After the three years, the defend asked the court to restore her civil rights; the court granted one request by restoring her right to vote, which is traditionally taken away from incarcerated defendants.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, the defendant asked the court to reconsider the trial court’s decision to deny his motion to suppress. The defendant was originally charged with transporting a narcotic drug for sale, and he filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence that he felt a police officer unfairly obtained. On appeal, however, the higher court disagreed with the defendant and ended up affirming the lower court’s ruling.

Facts of the Case

In the opinion, the court recounted the following facts: a detective was on patrol early one morning on the interstate when he noticed a car in his vicinity drift across the white “fog line” two times. He initiated a traffic stop, and he approached the driver and his passenger, who ended up being the defendant in this case.

The detective noticed several things about the defendant. His hands were shaky, his body was trembling, and he continuously licked his lips during the conversation. Because of the detective’s 15 years of experience in the field, he suspected that the defendant was under the influence of drugs or alcohol. The detective conducted a field sobriety test and, soon after, found several boxes in the car with “bulk drugs” for transport.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

When facing criminal charges in Arizona, it’s essential to understand not only the trial process but also strategies to protect the potential avenues for appeal. In a recent judicial opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed a defendant’s arguments surrounding the legality of his arrest after he was convicted of a drug charge and later and petitioned the court with an appeal.

Preserving Arguments for Appeal

One of the fundamental principles of the legal system is the preservation of arguments for appeal. In the recently decided case, the defendant raised several issues during his trial, including a motion to suppress evidence. However, the court emphasized that arguments made for the first time on appeal are typically waived unless there is a fundamental and prejudicial error.

The defendant first argued at trial that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights when conducting a search using a law enforcement database. However, the court ruled that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such databases, leading to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Because the defendant properly preserved the issue, the appellate court addressed the defendant’s arguments, although they were rejected as the trial court made no error.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona appellate court, the defendant argued that the trial court unreasonably modified the terms of his probation. The court’s response to the defendant’s argument brings up important questions such as whether a defendant on probation has the right to an attorney and whether a probationer can waive the right to the attorney if he does so knowingly and voluntarily. Ultimately, the opinion serves as a reminder that retaining qualified counsel is highly important in criminal proceedings, no matter what stage of the criminal proceedings are in play.

Probation Modification

The first question before the court was whether the defendant had the right to notice and a hearing before the court modified his probation terms. Apparently, the defendant had failed to comply with the terms of his probation – he failed to make court-ordered payments to the victim of his theft offense, and he committed at least one misdemeanor while on probation. The court provided the defendant with a form, which told him his probation would be extended for five additional years. The defendant signed the form.

On appeal, however, the higher court concluded that this form was insufficient under the law. The defendant instead had a right to a formal hearing before signing the form to indicate he understood the change in his probation. The US and Arizona constitutions guarantee a defendant due process, and that due process had been violated here.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant argued that his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault should be reversed. According to the defendant, the expert that testified on behalf of the prosecution during trial should not have been allowed to present himself as an expert. The court of appeals reviewed the officer’s qualifications, disagreed with the defendant’s analysis, and ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the court-issued opinion, the defendant in this case was driving 80 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone. His car hit another car from behind, and both vehicles flipped over and eventually stopped on a nearby embankment. The driver of the front car was taken to the hospital, and doctors later diagnosed her with fractured bones, fractured ribs, a broken sternum, and lacerations throughout her body.

The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, and a jury convicted him as charged. The trial court then sentenced the defendant to three different prison terms for each of the three counts of aggravated assault of which he was found guilty. He promptly appealed the findings.

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