James E. Novak
Published on:

By

The legal landscape surrounding criminal investigations can be complex, and understanding the nuances of key documents like probable cause affidavits and search warrants can make the difference in whether a defendant is convicted of the crime that they are charged with. The Arizona Court of Appeals recently released an opinion that can shed light on the differences between probable cause affidavits and search warrants under Arizona law.

According to the facts and procedural history discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant faced convictions for fraudulent schemes and artifices, burglary, and theft. The case originated from a series of burglaries where victims were lured from their homes by fake FedEx calls, leading to the theft of valuable items. Law enforcement, during the investigation, obtained the phone records of one victim, revealing a prepaid T-Mobile phone linked to the crimes.

Probable Cause Affidavit and Court Orders

In December 2015, law enforcement, armed with a probable cause affidavit, sought a court order to obtain cell site location information (CSLI) for the prepaid phone, citing relevant statutes. The affidavit outlined the need for GPS information and subscriber data. A judge, finding probable cause, issued the requested order. Despite facing challenges, including a typographical error in subsequent requests, law enforcement obtained the necessary orders, enabling GPS tracking of the phone.

The Search Warrant and Evidence Seizure

The GPS data led law enforcement to the defendant’s address, culminating in the issuance of a search warrant for his home. Executing the warrant, detectives discovered incriminating evidence, including tools and chemicals related to jewelry disassembly and a stone resembling one stolen during a previous burglary.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant challenged his guilty verdict based on the trial court’s definition of the word “education.” The case centered on the defendant’s insistence that his scattering dead body parts in public areas was not a crime, but instead was an attempt to educate the public. The jury disagreed, and the higher court ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case worked for a body donation center in Washington. He moved to Arizona, and he decided to take several human body parts along with him when he moved. Oddly, the man then scattered the body parts in the Arizona desert. This was important, the defendant later claimed, because he needed to educate passersby on public safety issues. He did not, however, offer a coherent statement about how the body parts would achieve his stated purpose.

Pedestrians found the body parts, and investigators traced them back to the defendant’s previous place of work, which they then back to the defendant himself. The defendant was charged with abandonment and concealment of a dead body. He pled not guilty, but a jury found him guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced the defendant to 2.5 years in prison. He promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent criminal case before an appellate court in Arizona, the defendant challenged the trial court’s decision to deny his motion for a new trial. Originally, a jury found the defendant guilty of several crimes, including aggravated assault and attempted arson. He filed a motion for a new trial after the jury returned a guilty verdict, arguing that the evidence at trial did not support the jury’s ultimate decision. Once the trial court denied this motion, the defendant appealed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant assaulted his partner in her home. The defendant’s partner was ultimately able to escape, but when she returned to the home about half an hour later, the defendant immediately asked her if she smelled any gas. It became clear to the partner that the defendant was attempting to burn the house down.

The partner called 911, and emergency responders quickly arrived at the scene. The firefighters were able to keep the explosion from happening, and police officers arrested the defendant. He was charged with the following crimes: felony endangerment, aggravated assault, attempted sexual assault, kidnapping, and attempted arson.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

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 →

Published on:

By

In a recent sexual abuse case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant argued that his conviction should be reversed because of evidence that was unreasonably admitted during his trial. The defendant was originally charged after a client at his massage therapy business alleged that he inappropriately touched her during their massage session. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty. The defendant went on to appeal the decision, but the higher court ultimately affirmed the guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant worked as a massage therapist at a local business. A woman came in for a massage, and during the massage, the defendant began touching her inappropriately with both his hands and his genitalia. The woman left the massage room and called 911 to report the incident.

The defendant was charged with two counts of sexual abuse. His case went to trial, and he was found guilty. The defendant promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In an October 2023 criminal case on appeal in Arizona, the defendant took issue with the trial court’s decision about how long he should be incarcerated after a jury found him guilty of aggravated DUI. Originally, the defendant was charged with aggravated DUI while he was on probation for two other convictions. Once he was found guilty, the trial court took both of his convictions into consideration when deciding his sentence. The defendant appealed this decision, but the higher court ultimately affirmed the lower court’s ruling.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving in December 2019 when officers pulled him over driving under the influence. The State charged the defendant with aggravated DUI and asked the trial court to revoke the defendant’s probation from both a 2010 felony DUI conviction and a 2013 misdemeanor DUI conviction.

The defendant’s case went to trial, and a jury found him guilty after four days of hearing evidence. The court then sentenced the defendant to over seven years in prison. The defendant promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona criminal court, the defendant asked for the court to overturn a conviction for sexual assault and voyeurism, arguing that one charge was brought against him too late after the offense occurred. Reviewing the defendant’s argument, the higher court ultimately denied his request, ruling he had not raised the issue early enough to benefit from the relevant statute of limitations.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was indicted in 2019 for sexual assault and voyeurism against several victims. The offenses occurred in 2008, 2015, 2017, and 2018. In each of the instances, the victim came forward and alleged that the defendant either raped, assaulted, or recorded her in a promiscuous setting without her consent.

Before the defendant’s case went to trial, he asked the Court to hold a separate trial for the 2008 incident because it was so far apart from the other incidents. The superior court denied the defendant’s request, and the trial moved forward.

The Decision

A jury found the defendant guilty of sexual assault and voyeurism against seven different women. The court sentenced him to several decades in prison, and the defendant appealed. On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that the 2008 offense should have been barred because of the statute of limitations. In Arizona, the State generally has seven years to initiate prosecution for sexual assault felonies. Here, said the defendant, more than seven years passed, and the State should not have been able to charge him with the crime over ten years later.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the defendant asked the higher court to reconsider his convictions for theft and unlawful flight from a law enforcement vehicle. The defendant was originally found guilty after he stole a truck and tried to escape from the officers who found him several miles from the truck owner’s home. On appeal, the higher court reviewed the trial record and found no error in the lower court’s proceedings. The court affirmed the convictions and kept the defendant’s sentences in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the owner of a 2005 Dodge Ram came home one evening to notice that his truck had been stolen from his driveway. The man had previously put a Lo-Jack system in his truck, which allowed him to track the vehicle if it were ever stolen. He activated the system and gave the relevant information to the police with the hopes of eventually finding the vehicle.

Soon, officers located the vehicle at a nearby convenience store. They went to the store and found the car by a gas tank. The defendant was in the front of the car, and the defendant’s cousin was filling one of the tires up with air. When an officer approached the truck with a gun drawn, the defendant pulled away and drove off. Officers followed the defendant to his home.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an appellate court in Arizona, the defendant asked the court to interpret a 2022 amendment to Arizona law in a way that would favor overturning his guilty verdict. Originally, the defendant was charged with and found guilty of first-degree murder. After receiving his guilty verdict, the defendant appealed, arguing that the higher court should closely critique the trial court’s decision to allow a certain jury member to serve on the case. Looking at the 2022 amendment regarding jury selection as well as the facts of this case, the higher court denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant went to trial on charges after he allegedly murdered his girlfriend. Before trial, both the prosecution and the defense proceeded with questioning potential jury members. The defense attorney objected to one juror in particular, who had close connections in her personal life to the kind of case that was on trial. The trial court, however, allowed the juror to serve, and the trial went forward.

The defendant was found guilty, and he promptly appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In an August 2023 case before an Arizona court of appeals, the State of Arizona appealed a trial court’s order suppressing a defendant’s DNA profile. The DNA in question connected the defendant with a 2015 murder, leading the State to charge him with first-degree murder, second-degree burglary, and sexual assault. After the State filed charges, the lower court determined that the DNA was obtained illegally, and it suppressed the DNA evidence. The State then appealed this decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators discovered the body of a dead woman in her apartment several years ago, in 2015. The murder went unsolved, as the investigators were unable to link any suspect to the incident.

Several years later, investigators conducted what is called a “familial DNA test” on the evidence from the 2015 crime scene. They discovered that an Arizona inmate was a close relative of the person whose DNA had been on the woman’s body. Investigating further, they then discovered that the inmate’s brother lived very close to the 2015 murder victim.

Because officers had previously arrested the inmate’s brother for several DUIs, they had already drawn this individual’s blood in the past. They then tested this blood, which they still had on file. The blood matched the unknown DNA from the murder scene several years prior.

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