James E. Novak
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 →

Published on:

By

In a recent opinion issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, the court overturned a defendant’s convictions for sexual conduct with a minor and indecent exposure to a minor. The opinion highlights the fact that trial courts must make a careful decision when one party requests to close the courtroom during trial. In this case, the State asked to keep nonessential people outside of the courtroom while the victim in the case testified. On appeal, the defendant argued that this decision to close the courtroom was unconstitutional, and ultimately, the higher court agreed.

Proceedings Before the Lower Court

The defendant was originally criminally charged after the victim, the daughter of his girlfriend, came forward and indicated that he had been sexually assaulting her for several years. According to the victim, the defendant was in charge of looking after her while her mother worked overtime, and it was during these instances that he would force her to have sex with him.

The defendant’s case went to trial, and the victim took the stand to testify. Court records indicate that the girl was 16 at the time of trial and that she was very nervous about testifying. A few minutes into her testimony, the State asked the trial court judge if he would close the courtroom and tell all “nonessential” individuals to leave the proceedings. The defense objected, but the trial judge decided to close the courtroom in order to give the victim some privacy.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, the defendant appealed his convictions and sentences stemming from a series of sexual assaults. On appeal, the defendant argued that because he committed the offenses when he was a minor, the superior court did not actually have the authority to hear his case, given that the case should have been heard in a juvenile court. Considering the defendant’s argument, the court ultimately denied the appeal but remanded the case back to the lower court for re-sentencing.

Offenses at Issue

In this case, the defendant sexually assaulted and abused three younger children between 2006 and 2008. At the time he committed the crimes, the defendant himself was a minor. The State learned about the offenses after the defendant turned 18 and he was charged with two counts of sexual conduct with a minor and three counts of child molestation.

Continue reading →
Published on:

By

Facing criminal charges, especially those related to sex crimes, is a daunting experience. If you or a loved one is seeking the services of a criminal defense attorney in Arizona, understanding the complexities of the legal landscape is crucial. In a recent judicial opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals discussed the admission of prior bad acts evidence in a sex crime prosecution as a key issue. Whether a prosecutor is allowed to submit evidence to a jury that unfairly prejudices a defendant is often the defining factor in a case.

In the recently decided case, the defendant was convicted of sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen years of age. The victim had been adopted into the defendant’s family, creating a step-sibling relationship with the defendant. The case hinged on the State’s allegations of emotional harm suffered by the victim as an aggravating circumstance. In support of their case, the prosecution sought to introduce evidence of prior bad acts committed by Fichtelman against another victim who was sexually abused at the age of 11. The court’s decision to admit this evidence became a pivotal point in the trial.

A critical aspect of the case was the admission of other acts into evidence related to the defendant’s prior misconduct with the other victim. The court’s decision to allow this evidence, highlights the delicate balance between relevance and potential prejudice. The Court narrowed their ruling, limiting the evidence to one prior conviction and excluding certain details, allowing the court to remain committed to offering the defendant a fair trial.

Continue reading →
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 →

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