James E. Novak
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 →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his guilty verdict in a burglary case. The defendant was originally convicted after a jury unanimously decided he had broken into a friend’s apartment with the intent to steal. According to the defendant, the prosecution had not sufficiently proven that he did not have permission to be inside the apartment. Disagreeing with the defendant, the court denied his appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant asked a friend of his if he could temporarily stay in her garage. The friend agreed, and the defendant spent a few nights sleeping in the apartment garage. One night, however, he started yelling in the middle of the night. The friend told him he had to leave the next day.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his convictions for aggravated assault and child abuse. He primarily argued that the trial court should not have denied a motion to suppress incriminating evidence – the denial of the motion was unfair, and it eventually contributed to his guilty convictions. Examining the trial court’s decision, the court of appeals denied the defendant’s argument and decided against siding with the defendant.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, this case began when a mother brought her 8-month-old baby to an emergency room due to a head injury. Doctors examined the baby and learned he had been shot in the head. The baby went through treatment, and he eventually left the hospital with cerebral palsy, impaired vision, and a lifelong increased risk for seizure. The doctors considered the baby lucky to be alive.

Investigators began trying to figure out how the baby got shot. Officers obtained a search warrant and went to the baby’s father’s home, where they found a pellet gun rifle, pellets, and a car seat covered in blood. Two officers interviewed the baby’s dad in a patrol car that same day, and he admitted that he might have accidentally shot his baby while shooting quail.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a June 2023 case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, the defendant argued that his conviction for the sale or transportation of dangerous drugs should be reversed. According to the defendant, the trial court’s use of his drug dealer as a witness during the seven-day trial was inappropriate, and the conviction should therefore be vacated. The court carefully reviewed the defendant’s argument, but it eventually disagreed and affirmed the guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and his adult son participated in an exchange of methamphetamine with their dealer, a woman they had worked with in the past. The drug deal took place in the dealer’s car, but once the dealer’s supplier joined the group, the deal went awry. Police officers came to the scene, and the defendant and his son both fled. Officers caught up to the defendant, arrested him, and later interrogated him regarding the series of events. The defendant pled not guilty to the offense, telling the officers that he had given the dealer money for “something”, not for anything related to drugs.

The defendant’s case went to trial, and the dealer testified for the State under an immunity agreement. She confirmed that she had worked with the defendant and that they were, indeed, exchanging methamphetamine on the day in question.

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