Phoenix DUI Law Blog

March 31, 2023

Defendant in Armed Robbery Case Asks for Reversal on Procedural Grounds

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked for his guilty conviction to be reversed because of an error committed by the trial court. Originally, the defendant was charged with and convicted of armed robbery. After his trial, the defendant asked for a reversal because, he argued, the lower court had failed to sufficiently inform him of his rights at several of his hearings. Ultimately, the court of appeals determined that while the lower court had failed to properly advise the defendant of certain rights, this fact did not warrant a reversal. The court kept the original conviction in place.

Facts of the Case

The defendant was arrested in connection with a series of incidents in which a man wearing a clown mask approached individuals, pointed a gun at them, and robbed them. After several months of this particular kind of armed robbery popping up throughout the area, investigators were able to link the defendant in this case to the crime. He was criminally charged, and his case headed for trial.

Before trial, the defendant went to court for several suppression hearings or hearings in which he tried to get certain incriminating evidence suppressed before the trial began. At these hearings, the defendant opted to represent himself, even though he was offered an attorney. He brought in several witnesses for each of the hearings, and his motions to suppress were denied at each hearing.

March 22, 2023

Arizona Defendant Successfully Argues for Vacated Plea Deal in Light of 2020 Marijuana Legalization

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked for his 2017 plea deal to be vacated and reconsidered. Five years ago, the defendant pled guilty to several crimes and was sentenced with a marijuana conviction on his record. Given the 2020 legalization of recreational marijuana in Arizona, the defendant argued that his original sentence should be reconsidered. Looking at the facts of the case, the higher court ultimately agreed with the defendant and ended up sending his case back to the lower court so that it could recalculate the defendant’s sentence.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant pled guilty in 2017 to two counts of sex trafficking. When the defendant and the State were negotiating his plea deal, the defendant admitted that he had seven previous felony convictions on his record – one of these offenses was possession of marijuana in 2004. Because of the combination of these previous convictions and the 2017 convictions, the defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison.

In 2020, however, Arizona voted to legalize marijuana for recreational use. As part of that new law, adults that had been previously convicted of marijuana use could be eligible to have those convictions removed from their records. Here, the defendant filed a petition before the court after this 2020 law passed, arguing that his 2004 marijuana conviction should be vacated. If the 2004 conviction were removed, he argued, the defendant’s overall sentence would be less than the 12 years he received.

February 28, 2023

Arizona Court of Appeals Denies Defendant’s Request for New Trial in Assault Case

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to grant him a new trial after he received a guilty verdict. Originally, the defendant was charged with and convicted of aggravated assault. After his four-day trial, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial, but the lower court denied his motion. He promptly appealed, arguing that the trial court unfairly denied his request.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, two individuals were delivering food to a friend’s home one evening when the defendant abruptly approached and struck one of the individuals twice with a machete. After the attack, the defendant took off running. Officers searched for the defendant diligently, and they were eventually able to track him down and charge him with the crime.

In the meantime, the man who was attacked suffered severe injuries from the machete. He underwent surgery on his hand and his thigh, and he lost the ability to complete the physical aspects of his job. He also became dependent on others to help him use the bathroom, clean himself, and generally assist him in completing day-to-day tasks.

February 10, 2023

Arizona Defendant in Sexual Assault Case Successfully Argues for Reversal of Conviction and Sentence

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider his convictions and sentences for sexual conduct with a minor. Originally, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 51 years in prison after he molested three children; however, the defendant was between the ages of 10 and 12 when he committed the crime. On appeal, then, the court found that the defendant was too young to have been prosecuted as an adult, and it ultimately vacated the convictions.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was a child when his mother took him every week to the house of the children she babysat. Over the course of several years, the defendant engaged in sexual acts with the three kids in the household without the kids’ consent.

Approximately ten years later, the kids told their mother about the incidents. At that point, the defendant was 23 years old, and the State charged him with sexual conduct with a minor and child molestation. The case went to trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty as charged. He was then sentenced to 51 years in prison.

January 31, 2023

Arizona Defendant Loses Appeal in Drug Case

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals last month, the defendant asked that the court reconsider an unfavorable verdict from the trial court. Originally, the defendant was convicted of selling or transporting dangerous drugs. On appeal, she argued that the lower court unfairly denied her motion to suppress; because the officers that found drugs in her car did not actually have the right to conduct a traffic stop, she argued, the evidence should not have come in at trial. After reviewing the record of the case, the court of appeals affirmed the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators had been looking into the defendant and her acquaintance for months, suspecting they were engaged in the sale of dangerous drugs. While the investigators were conducting surveillance, they watched one day as the two individuals loaded their SUV and got on the highway. Because the investigators had been looking into these two people for a while, they did not want to make it obvious that they were following the car or that they suspected there were drugs in the car.

The investigators asked local police officers to conduct something called a “whisper stop”, which is when a law enforcement agency can ask another agency to find an entirely different reason to stop and search a vehicle so that the driver and passengers are not clued into the fact that they are under surveillance. Here, the local police officers received the call that the investigating agency needed a whisper stop, so they followed the car and suspected it was speeding by 5 miles per hour.

January 21, 2023

Defendant Convicted of Aggravated DUI Loses Appeal before Arizona Court of Appeals

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In a case before the Arizona Court of Appeals earlier this month, the defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for aggravated driving while under the influence. Originally, the defendant was charged and found guilty after a jury trial; he was sentenced to concurrent twelve-year prison terms because the jury found that he was on felony release when he committed the offenses. The defendant asked the higher court to vacate his sentence, but after reviewing the case, the court rejected the appeal and affirmed the original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with two counts of aggravated driving while under the influence. The State tried to offer the defendant a settlement deal, which would have allowed him to accept a sentence of five years in prison if he agreed to plead guilty. The defendant rejected the deal and decided he wanted to move forward with trial.

Two days before trial, the trial judge had the parties in for a scheduling conference, just to talk about logistics for trial. At that conference, the judge asked the defendant about whether he was sure he did not want to settle the case. The defendant stated that he was sure, and that he wanted to proceed with trial as originally planned.

December 28, 2022

Defendant in Arizona Aggravated DUI Case Unsuccessfully Asks Court to Reverse Conviction

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked the court to reconsider her convictions for manslaughter, aggravated assault, criminal damage, and aggravated DUI. On appeal, the defendant argued that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to support the convictions, and, thus, that her guilty verdict should be vacated. After reviewing the record, the court denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one afternoon with her young daughter in the backseat. At the time, the defendant’s daughter was not in a booster seat but was buckled in only by the car’s lap belt. As she drove, the defendant started swerving the car and veering off the side of the road. Eventually, she crossed the double line into oncoming traffic and crashed head-on into another car.

Unfortunately, the defendant’s daughter suffered severe injuries and later died of brain trauma. The second car’s driver was also injured, and he was treated for a fracture to his leg. The driver’s car was also completely totaled.
Upon searching the defendant’s car, officers found prescription bottles, medical marijuana, and pipes in the defendant’s possession. A subsequent analysis of the defendant’s blood showed that she had several heavy depressant-like drugs in her system – drugs that would certainly impair her ability to drive. The defendant was criminally charged, and her case went to trial.

December 11, 2022

Officers to Ramp Up DUIs Around 2022 Holiday Season

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, part of our job is to meet with clients in moments of crisis and figure out how to craft a winning legal strategy that will meet their needs. Too often, we speak with clients who are facing DUI charges that could have been avoided. Roadways and highways in Arizona can be dangerous places, and it is important to drive with an acute awareness of your surroundings as you travel this holiday season.

Around Christmas, Hanukkah, and New Year’s, state troopers know that drivers are more likely to get behind the wheel of a car under the influence of alcohol or drugs. With celebrations happening at an increased rate, drivers can easily become less vigilant about driving safely and about arranging for a designated driver ahead of time. Because of statistics that point to a clear increase in drunk driving during the month of December, officers put more time and resources into monitoring for DUIs at the end of the calendar year.

In Arizona, a person who drives with a blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) of .08 or higher is over the legal limit. For a first offense, when the BAC is between .08 and .149%, a driver faces a minimum of ten days in jail; when the BAC is between .15 and .199%, a driver faces a minimum of 30 days in jail; and when the BAC is over .20%, a driver faces a minimum of 45 days in jail. Each of these sentences is also accompanied by fines, license suspensions of at least 90 days, and orders to install ignition interlock devices as a method of surveillance.

November 15, 2022

Arizona Court Sides with Criminal Defendant in Extreme DUI Case

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

Earlier this month, an Arizona court of appeals had to decide how an early-release statute would apply to a defendant that could not actually obey the statute given her specific situation. In the case before the court, an individual had been convicted of extreme driving under the influence. The early-release statute in question says that if someone convicted of this crime installs an ignition interlock device in her/his car, that person can have their sentence lessened by 31 days. Because the defendant did not own a car, the court had to decide whether she was still eligible for early release.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged with and convicted of extreme driving under the influence. When officers asked her to take a breath test on the road, her blood alcohol content was .20, significantly over the legal limit of .08. The high concentration of alcohol meant that the defendant was not only subject to penalties for driving under the influence, but also for a separate crime known as “extreme” driving under the influence.

In Arizona, if a person convicted of this crime installs an ignition interlock in her/his car, she or he can be released from jail 31 days ahead of schedule. Here, the defendant asked for early release from her probation, but the State argued she had not even finished her full time in jail, let alone completed the requirements of probation. The defendant stated that she should be released under the ignition interlock statute even though she had not technically complied – she did not own a car and thus could not have complied without purchasing an entirely new vehicle.

November 10, 2022

Defendant in Arizona DUI Case Fails to Convince Court that Evidence was Improperly Excluded at Trial

by James E. Novak, P.L.L.C.

Earlier this month, an appeals court in Arizona considered whether a criminal defendant that had caused a deadly accident was indeed guilty of homicide and aggravated assault. Originally, the defendant was convicted after his truck collided with an ATV while he was under the influence. Despite the defendant’s argument on appeal that the trial court improperly limited his defense, the court of appeals affirmed the original guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a woman was at the store one evening when she saw several teenage girls next to her; she recognized the girls as being the same ones that were on an ATV she had recently passed on the road. Before leaving the store, the woman saw the girls on the ATV drive out ahead of her. She also saw the defendant in this case, in his truck, driving out around the same time. Minutes later, she drove away herself, and immediately noticed debris on the road. She knew there had been an accident, and she called 911 to report that the ATV and the truck had collided.

Investigators and first respondents arrived at the scene, and they found two of the ATV riders had died while the third had suffered serious injuries. The defendant had run away from the accident, and the woman from the store told officers she thought he could have been involved.