Theft Crimes

July 14, 2024

Arizona Defendant’s Convictions Affirmed in Recent Burglary Case, Highlighting Importance of Aggressive Defense Strategies During Trial Phase

A recent case before the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One, demonstrates the difficulty of fighting charges when the facts are not in your favor. In the case at issue, the defendant pled not guilty to burglary, and his case later went to trial. The court then sentenced him to 20 years in prison. In cases like these, it is important to talk with your attorney about how to try and suppress evidence at the trial phase, so that the prosecution has less evidence to present a case against you. By implementing aggressive and creative strategies during trial, you can do everything in your power to receive the “not guilty” verdict you need.

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.

May 13, 2024

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Case Revolving Around Possible Prosecutorial Bias

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

Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an important ruling clarifying how trial courts must deal with the conflict when they are faced with the reality of (or appearance of) bias. In the case at issue, the state charged a defendant with several fraud-related offenses, including illegally obtaining and using another person’s credit card. As it turns out, the credit card owner worked for the agency responsible for prosecuting the defendant. The trial court therefore had to decide whether to send the case to another jurisdiction for prosecution, given the agency’s potential bias in the case.

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.

April 30, 2024

Arizona Court Approves Shortened Sentence for Defendant with Cognitive Impairment

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

In a recent case before an appeals court in Arizona, the court affirmed a shorter sentence for a defendant with several mental impairments. The decision highlighted both the nature of the defendant’s crimes and the nature of his psychological evaluation, which both went into the trial court’s sentencing decision. Overall, the opinion serves as a reminder that while sentencing guidelines can be harsh for many defendants, there are also narrow circumstances in which sentences are amended for defendants under certain difficult conditions.

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.

June 30, 2023

Arizona Court Sides with Defendant on Double Jeopardy Issue, Lessening His Sentence as a Result

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

Recently, a case before an Arizona court of appeals looked at the question of whether shoplifting and theft should be classified as two separate convictions or as the same conviction. In the June 2023 case, the defendant was originally arrested and charged after he stole water bottles from a grocery store, and he was convicted of both shoplifting and theft as a result. After being sentenced heavily based on the two convictions, the defendant appealed; looking over the record, the court ultimately agreed with the defendant’s argument and modified his sentence to reflect that he was guilty of one conviction instead of two.

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.

June 15, 2023

Arizona Defendant Loses Appeal in Case Involving Substantial Delays

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

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant argued that his motion to dismiss should have been granted by the lower court. Apparently, the court had originally scheduled the defendant to come in for a hearing regarding alleged violations of the terms of his probation. Because of significant delays, however, the defendant argued that the lower court should have vacated the hearing altogether. Ultimately, the higher court disagreed with the defendant and denied the appeal.

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.