Facts of the Case

According to the opinion in this case, the defendant was charged after he and an accomplice robbed a jewelry store in March 2020. The pair took a sledgehammer to the store’s cases, and they left with over $150,000 worth of jewelry. The individuals escaped in a red BMW, which police subsequently hunted down. By the time officers found the vehicle, the defendant and his accomplice had fled, but the officers found the stolen jewelry in the car. They later found the defendant and charged him with burglary in the third degree, theft, and three counts of trafficking stolen property in the third degree.

The facts of the case did not work in the defendant’s favor. Security footage showed him committing the crime; there were multiple witnesses; and officers quickly located him after he committed the crime. Once he was found guilty, he appealed, but the higher court found no error and affirmed the convictions.

more Motions to Suppress

When the facts of a case work strongly against you, talk with your criminal defense attorney about whether you could move to suppress incriminating evidence in your case. If you can successfully ask a judge to suppress parts of the prosecution’s evidence, the jury will have significantly more doubt as to whether you committed the crime at hand. An experienced Phoenix criminal defense attorney will be well aware of the arguments he or she could raise on a motion to suppress, which could end up making all the difference in your case.

Do You Need a Phoenix Burglary Attorney By Your Side?

If you or a loved one has been criminally charged in Arizona, give our office a call to talk through a defense strategy that works for you. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we take pride in our aggressive and dedicated approach for each individual client and each individual case. Our experience in litigating a wide array of criminal cases makes us uniquely poised to represent you, and our team knows how to put on the strongest defense possible to make sure your voice is heard and your rights are protected.

If you haven’t yet spoken with an experienced Phoenix burglary attorney, call us today for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible.

The Gomez Factors

In laying out the facts of the case, the higher court noted that one case in particular, Gomez v. Superior Court, outlines the factors a trial court should consider when deciding whether to disqualify counsel given possible bias. These factors are: (1) whether the request is made to harass the defendant; (2) whether the party asking for an attorney’s disqualification will be damaged if the request is not granted; (3) whether there are alternative solutions available; and (4) whether the possibility of public suspicion will “outweigh any benefits” afforded by the continued representation.

It is the trial court’s job, said the Arizona Supreme Court, to consider these four Gomez factors when deciding whether to disqualify counsel because of a potential bias. The court must make an adequate record describing how the facts of the case fit into each of the factors.

In this particular case, the trial court decided to disqualify the prosecuting agency because the crime victim was an agency employee. While that decision might have been warranted, said the court, the trial court failed to go through the necessary Gomez factors. There is no question that Gomez is the appropriate case law and therefore the appropriate test to apply. Therefore, not seeing anything in the trial record about the court’s consideration of these factors, the case was remanded for additional proceedings.

The court’s ruling serves as an important reminder that any bias in a courtroom, whether significant or slight, should be challenged. It is every defendant’s right to have an impartial trial, and any possible infringement on that right should be closely examined.

Do You Need a Phoenix White Collar Crime Lawyer to Stand by Your Side?

The legal landscape in Arizona is tough to navigate and constantly changing, which is why if you have been charged with a financial or fraud-based crime, you need a Phoenix white collar crime lawyer to help you get your charges dropped. With so much at stake, it is important to retain an attorney that listens to what you need and implements a litigation strategy that puts you front and center.

For your free and confidential consultation with an expert Phoenix white collar crime lawyer, give us a call today at (480) 413-1499. Don’t have time to call today? You also have the option of filling out our online “contact us” form, which will allow an attorney to get back to you as soon as possible about the details of your case.

Facts of the Case

This case began when the defendant tried to use a fake $100 bill to pay at a local gas station. The attendant could immediately tell that the bill was fake and told the defendant that she would not be accepting the money. The defendant subsequently began yelling, and the attendant called the police. Even though the defendant had fled by the time the police arrived, the attendant offered a physical description to the officers.

That same day, the defendant went to another gas station and again tried to use a fake $100 bill. The employee recognized that the bill was fraudulent, told the defendant that he wouldn’t be accepting the money, and called the police once the defendant began hitting the window of the kiosk. The defendant fled, but again the attendant offered a physical description.

A few hours later, an officer noticed a pedestrian matching the attendants’ descriptions of the defendant. The officer found a fake $100 bill on the defendant’s person and arrested him.

Procedural History

The defendant was charged with three counts of forgery, and he pled not guilty. The case went to trial, and the prosecution entered into evidence the fake $100 bills and the police officer’s body-camera footage of his search of the defendant. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he promptly appealed.

The Appeal

In its decision, the court noted that a psychologist conducted a mental evaluation of the defendant, finding through his evaluation that the defendant suffered from the following conditions: cognitive impairment, alcohol use disorder, antisocial personality disorder, and delusional disorder.

Given these conditions, the sentencing court imposed a shorter sentence than it otherwise would have imposed. The defendant received one year in prison for each offense, with credit for time he had already served. The higher court affirmed this sentence, agreeing that the defendant’s conditions were a mitigating factor in the crimes he committed.

Are You in Need of a Maricopa County Criminal Defense Lawyer?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we represent clients in Arizona charged with any number of crimes, no matter the severity. Our clients trust us to work tirelessly on their behalf, because we do not rest until we have done everything in our power to get their charges dropped. For a free and confidential consultation with your Maricopa County criminal defense lawyer, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form if you would like to have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible about your case.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was at Safeway one afternoon when he took two cases of water bottles that were on display outside the store. Several store employees saw the defendant putting the cases in his car, and they yelled at him to put them back immediately. The defendant replied that he had a gun, and he proceeded to the car despite the employees’ protests.

The employees called the police, and several officers arrived on the scene immediately. The defendant was charged with shoplifting and theft, and his case went to trial. A jury unanimously found him guilty of both offenses, and he was sentenced to significant time in prison as a result.

more The Decision

The defendant appealed the jury’s decision, primarily arguing that the verdict violated part of the U.S. Constitution called “double jeopardy.” According to this provision, an individual cannot be found guilty multiple times based on the same offense. Here, said the defendant, the elements of the shoplifting offense and the theft offense had significant overlap. It was, therefore, unfair that he was found doubly guilty when both of the offenses were based on the exact same action.

Looking at the defendant’s argument, the court agreed that the lower court had violated the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution. Indeed, said the court, the offenses had significant overlap, and he should not have been convicted twice for something that only happened once. By modifying the defendant’s conviction, the court lessened the overall sentence, marking a significant victory for the defendant.

Are You In the Market for a Strong Arizona Defense Attorney?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we give every client the care and attention they deserve because we understand how much is at stake when a person’s individual freedom is on the line. Even in a case involving charges like shoplifting, which may not appear serious to some, we provide our clients with aggressive representation to ensure their arrest as has little impact as possible on the rest of their life. We offer aggressive, individualized representation, and we are there for our clients even in the toughest of times. If you are facing criminal charges in Arizona and you need representation, call us today for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case.

Facts of the Case

Twelve years ago, the defendant in this case pled guilty to burglary, theft, and criminal damage. After the defendant’s guilty plea, the court sentenced the defendant to time in prison and placed him on a five-year probation term upon his release. During this probation period, the defendant ran into trouble when he was criminally charged with trespassing and refusing to leave his ex-girlfriend’s property. He was arrested again a year later for smuggling undocumented individuals into the U.S.

Given these charges, the State asked the court to revoke the defendant’s probation. The court scheduled a hearing to review the terms of the defendant’s probation, but the hearing did not actually happen until two years after the original hearing was scheduled. When the hearing finally occurred, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the hearing had been unreasonably delayed. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, and he promptly appealed.

more The Decision

The court reviewed the defendant’s appeal and agreed that the hearing had been substantially delayed – two years went by between the scheduling of the hearing and the hearing itself. However, said the court, the delays were because the defendant and his attorney continued to request that the hearing be moved to a later date. On five different occasions, the defendant had filed motions to continue. On several other occasions, COVID-19 prevented the court from convening, which the higher court considered to be a reasonable reason for a delay.

Because the State was prepared for each hearing and because the court was also ready to hear from the parties on each of the scheduled dates, the higher court decided the motion to dismiss was rightfully denied. It would be unfair, said the court, if the defendant was allowed to request continuances, then request a dismissal when the court ultimately granted those continuances.

The lower court’s ruling was affirmed.

Are You Looking for a Qualified Defense Attorney in Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we understand that facing criminal charges is daunting, especially with the constantly changing legal landscape in Arizona. We pledge to be by your side every step of the way during your criminal case, doing all that we can to ensure your charges are dropped. For a free and confidential consultation with an Arizona criminal defense attorney, call us today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to give us some of the details on your case.