James E. Novak
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 →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant appealed her convictions for theft and fraudulent schemes. The defendant took issue with the trial court’s conduct during her trial, after which a jury found her guilty of mismanaging several trusts and taking trust owners’ money for herself. After looking closely at the trial record, the court of appeals disagreed with the defendant and kept her convictions and sentences in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant managed the assets of several trusts. Over time, it became clear that in each trust, the amount of money available to the trust owners was dwindling significantly. Upon investigating, the State discovered that the defendant was taking money out of each trust and using it to pay her credit card bills and fund her personal accounts. She also seemed to be fabricating her records of the time she spent managing the trust, recording unreasonably long hours and explaining that the significant payments were because of the high volume of hours she was working.

The State charged the defendant for mismanaging the trusts, and her case went to trial. At trial, the defendant chose to represent herself, despite being offered an attorney. She made several arguments in an attempt to get the case dismissed, but the trial went forward.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By
Recently, an appeals court in Arizona was faced with the decision of whether to reverse a lower court’s decision not to expunge an individual’s record. The individual was originally found guilty of marijuana possession in 2014, but after laws in Arizona passed that allowed for this kind of offense to be stricken from a person’s record, the defendant asked the court to remove it (or to “expunge” it). When the lower court denied this request, the defendant appealed, and the higher court agreed with the defendant, ultimately directing the lower court to erase the crime from the defendant’s record.
Facts of the Case
According to the opinion, the defendant was arrested in 2014 for possessing 18 grams of marijuana. He pled guilty, and the superior court placed him on two years’ supervised probation. Even after he finished the probation, however, the offense remained on the defendant’s record.
In 2020, Arizona voters passed an important law that legalized adult possession of marijuana. The law also stated that agencies could file “expungement petitions,” asking courts to erase marijuana-related convictions from an individual’s record. Once this law passed, the State petitioned to expunge all records related to the defendant’s arrest and conviction. The court denied the State’s request, and the defendant appealed.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant argued that his confession should have been suppressed at the trial court level. Originally, the defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, and after he was found guilty, he asked the higher court to reconsider the unfavorable verdict. After reviewing the case and ultimately agreeing with the defendant’s argument, the court vacated the verdict and the associated sentences.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the victim in this case drove up to a gas station one evening, got into an altercation with another individual, and was eventually shot in the leg. Because of blood loss associated with the shooting, the victim later died. Local police officers immediately began an investigation, which led them to the defendant in this case.

The officers obtained a search warrant and used that search warrant to collect DNA from the defendant. They connected the defendant’s DNA with DNA from the crime scene, which they told the defendant during his interrogation. After hearing this information, the defendant confessed to the crime.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a case before an Arizona court of appeals last month, the defendant asked the court to overturn his conviction for disorderly conduct. The defendant was originally charged after a road rage incident that ended with him pulling out his gun to threaten the driver of another car. The case went to trial, and the defendant was found guilty of disorderly conduct. On appeal, the defendant argued he had an unfair trial because the police failed to save his wife’s 911 call from the day of the incident. Ultimately disagreeing with the defendant, the higher court affirmed the guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving with his wife when he and another car got into a road rage incident. The cars began trying to cut each other off, and the defendant got in front of the other car to begin tapping his brakes in an attempt to ward the second car off.

Eventually, the cars slammed on their brakes. The defendant got out of the car with a gun in his hand. The second car’s driver would later testify that the defendant pointed the gun in his direction, while the defendant would testify that he did not point the gun but instead just made it clear to the second driver that he had a gun in his possession.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In a recent case published by an appeals court in Arizona, the defendant asked that his convictions for aggravated assault and disorderly conduct be vacated. The defendant was charged after an incident on a campground during which he allegedly pulled out his gun and shot in the direction of two children. A jury found him guilty, and the defendant appealed.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was camping one evening when two young boys came riding on ATVs near his campsite. Frustrated with the noise, the defendant began yelling at the boys to get away from his campsite. When that did not work, he pulled out a handgun and fired two shots near where the boys were riding.

The boys’ parents came to talk to the defendant after their children came back to their own campsite, rattled by what had happened. At that point, the defendant admitted to the parents that he has fired two shots in kids’ general direction. He claimed that the kids were recklessly driving and leaving track marks all over his campsite, but when police officers arrived a few minutes later, they could not find track marks within 60 feet of the defendant’s campsite.

Continue reading →

Published on:

By

In an April 2023 case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant took issue with a police officer’s Miranda warnings when he was arrested and charged. The defendant was originally accused of theft of property, burglary, and theft of a means of transportation. He was subsequently convicted and sentenced, and he appealed promptly. Reviewing the officer’s Miranda warnings on the day of the arrest, the higher court ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal and sustained the original convictions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was accused of stealing a woman’s car after security footage caught him driving away from a fitness center in the vehicle. The woman worked at the fitness center, and she had hung her keys and lanyard on a hook inside the gym. The defendant later took the keys without permission, drove away, and kept the car at a neighbor’s house nearby.

After reviewing the security footage, officers arrived at the defendant’s house. They found the car, arrested the defendant, and brought him in for questioning. The officers gave the defendant Miranda warnings, which are required under the constitution to inform criminal defendants that they have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney.

Continue reading →

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 →

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