James E. Novak
Published on:

By

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, a mother asked the court to review the sentence that a lower court handed to her in 2022. Originally, the mother was criminally charged with negligent child abuse in 2006. After a trial in which she was found guilty as charged, the mother was not seen for another 14 years, despite the court’s issuing a warrant for her arrest. In 2022, however, she suddenly filed to quash the warrant in her case. The lower court handed out a sentence despite this request, the mother appealed, and the higher court had to decide whether it agreed with the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the mother was charged after a police officer pulled her over as she was driving on the highway in November 2005. The officer talked to the mother and found out she was under the influence of marijuana while her minor child was in the car. In January of the next year, she was indicted on one count of child abuse for putting her child in a dangerous situation.

The case went to trial, but the mother did not appear because she could not travel to Arizona for the proceedings. After two days, however, the jury returned a guilty verdict. The resulting arrest warrant stayed pending between the trial in 2006 and 2022 when the mother suddenly asked the court to quash the warrant.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Last month, an Arizona court of appeals delivered an unfavorable decision for a defendant convicted of aggravated assault. The defendant was found guilty of the assault after a jury trial, and she promptly appealed by arguing that some of the evidence admitted at trial should not have been part of the case. Considering this argument, the court of appeals ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal, and her original conviction and sentence remained in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was staying with a friend in his spare bedroom for a temporary period of time. Eventually, the friend asked the defendant to leave, and she became angry. She refused to pack up and leave, and she began destroying parts of the friend’s property in retaliation.

After several days of this behavior, the friend insisted that the defendant leave immediately. She again refused. The friend found the defendant in the spare bedroom and noticed that a previously standing mirror was lying on the floor. The friend turned to pick up the mirror, and the defendant immediately shot the friend in the neck.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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 →

Published on:

By

Last month, a defendant involved in a sexual assault case appealed his convictions of kidnapping, sexual assault, and sexual conduct with a minor. Originally, the State of Arizona had brought charges against him for incidents with four different victims under the age of 18. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was convicted and sentenced as charged. On appeal, the defendant made several arguments, one of which was that the prosecutor unfairly played to the jury’s emotions during the trial. Looking at the trial record, the court of appeals ultimately affirmed the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with incidents of sexual assault that happened in 1992, 1995, 1999, and 2004. The minors in each case had reported to law enforcement that the defendant had either kidnapped, raped, or otherwise assaulted them, but law enforcement failed to properly investigate the cases.

Finally, in 2018, law enforcement reopened each of the four cases. By that point, cold-case testing had led officers to believe that the defendant was the person guilty of all four crimes. Police called the four victims and asked if they would come to testify in the defendant’s trial.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent Arizona car theft case, the defendant unsuccessfully appealed his conviction and sentence for theft of a means of transportation. The trial court sentenced the defendant to an enhanced, aggravated prison term of fourteen years. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. The appeals court denied his appeal and affirmed his conviction and his sentence.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, one evening in February 2021, a man forced his way into the back door of a home while the resident was not there. The person took a car key fob and several personal items from the home, departing in the resident’s car. Using the car’s global positioning system, the resident was able to track her car to a precise location in Maricopa, where police officers found it early the next morning. The defendant was in the driver’s seat, and another individual was in the passenger’s seat. The defendant was indicted for theft of a means of transportation and then convicted as charged, and sentenced to an enhanced, aggravated prison term of fourteen years following a jury trial. The defendant filed an appeal shortly thereafter.

On appeal, the defendant contended that the state presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for theft of a means of transportation. The appellate court reviewed de novo the sufficiency of the evidence. In doing so, the appeals court viewed the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdict and resolving all inferences against the defendant. The appellate court opinion outlined the evidence presented against the defendant, establishing that the car was stolen and the defendant was found sitting in the driver’s seat of the car several hours later without permission to be in the car.

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

This past month, an appeals court in Arizona ruled on a defendant’s appeal of the lower court’s decision on his motion to suppress. After the defendant had been charged with a series of violent crimes, he asked the trial court to suppress evidence of incriminating messages that investigators found on his Facebook account. After the first court denied this motion, the defendant appealed, and the higher court took the matter under advisement.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators were looking into the murder of a local woman when they began to suspect the defendant in this case. They obtained a search warrant from a court, and thus got permission to look through the defendant’s social media accounts to see if they could find any leads.

Upon looking at the defendant’s Facebook account, the investigators found a message that he had sent a friend with a picture of the dead victim. In the message, the defendant wrote, “look what I did.” Investigators used this information to find more incriminating evidence against the defendant, and he was eventually criminally charged.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his guilty conviction for producing marijuana. Originally, the defendant was criminally charged after police officers searched his house in response to a 911 emergency call. On appeal, the defendant argued the search was warrantless, and, thus that the evidence officers found against him was illegally obtained. The higher court, considering this argument, ruled that the officers were allowed to search the defendant’s property without a warrant, given the officers’ concern that there was a potential emergency that needed their attention. The defendant’s appeal was subsequently denied.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, police officers involved in this case received an emergency call from 911 one evening while on patrol. The person on the other end of the phone yelled, “help!” and the officers were able to immediately trace the call to the defendant’s address. Concerned for the caller’s safety, the officers quickly drove to the defendant’s address.

When the officers arrived, they tried to enter onto the property but were blocked by a fence. Receiving no response to their warnings, the officers decided to jump the fence to enter the property. The officers jumped over the fence and did not immediately see any emergency, but instead smelled marijuana growing on the property. They noticed a marijuana grow tent, as well as a sleeping man lying on a cot with a rifle nearby. The officers left the property and obtained a search warrant, later returning to the home and finding growing marijuana plants as well as drug paraphernalia.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

A common theme in Arizona domestic violence prosecutions involves the changing stories and testimonies of alleged domestic violence victims as a case progresses toward prosecution and conviction. Often, complaining victims may exaggerate or fabricate evidence of domestic violence in response to a domestic altercation, or to offset allegations of violence against themselves when law enforcement is called to the scene of a domestic dispute. Although domestic violence is never an acceptable response to a relationship or familial dispute, unfounded allegations of domestic violence sometimes result in severe, life-altering consequences to the alleged perpetrator, and sometimes also the alleged victim as well. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently affirmed a defendant’s aggravated assault conviction for a domestic violence crime, despite the victim’s attempt to recant her initial complaint to the police from the day of the alleged incident.

The defendant in the recently decided appeal was arrested and charged with aggravated assault after he allegedly strangled and assaulted the mother of his children during an argument between the parties. Although the visual evidence of strangulation was limited, the police and prosecutors were inclined to prosecute the charges based on the victim’s initial reporting to the police. As the case approached trial, however, the victim’s story changed, and she testified at trial that she was in fact not strangled by the defendant, insinuating that her initial report to the police was an emotional response to a personal argument between the parties. The victim’s trial testimony was not persuasive to the jury in their case, and the defendant was convicted of the charges. The defendant was then sentenced to 12 years in prison.

The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing that the statements made by the victim to the investigator should not have been admitted at trial, as they were hearsay. Furthermore, the defendant argued that the evidence at trial was not sufficient to support his conviction. The appellate court rejected the defendant’s arguments, finding that the victim’s statements were admissible at trial specifically because they were inconsistent with her testimony at trial. Additionally, the appellate court gave great deference to the trial judge’s determination that there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. As a result of the appellate rulings, the defendant will be required to serve his prison sentence.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Last month, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled on a defendant’s appeal in a sexual assault case. After a lengthy trial in the lower court, the defendant was found guilty of sexually assaulting his minor niece. On appeal, the defendant made several arguments, arguing the guilty verdict was unfounded and should be reversed. The court of appeals kept the guilty verdict in place, rejecting the defendant’s contentions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the victim in this case was a minor who would sometimes stay over at her cousin’s house for the evening. One night, she slept over with her cousin, sharing a room but sleeping in her own bed. During the night, her uncle, the defendant, came into the room to soothe his daughter, the victim’s cousin. The defendant was responding to his daughter’s cries, and he originally came in to make sure she was sleeping soundly. After checking on his daughter, the defendant allegedly got into bed with the victim and sexually assaulted her.

The next day, the victim told her family members what had happened. She was taken to the hospital for forensic testing, and the defendant was charged with sexual conduct with a minor. At trial, a jury found the defendant guilty and he was eventually sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of release after 35 years.

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 – 2023, The Law Office of James E. Novak
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design