Phoenix DUI Law Blog

June 15, 2023

Arizona Defendant Loses Appeal in Case Involving Substantial Delays

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.

May 31, 2023

Arizona Defendant in Negligent Homicide Case Appeals Based on Error in Jury Instructions

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

In a recent negligent homicide case in Arizona, the defendant appealed the guilty verdict he received after a jury found him responsible for the death of a second driver while he was on the road. The criminal charges stemmed from an indecent in which the defendant’s car crashed into a second car, tragically killing the second car’s driver. The defendant was found guilty at trial, and he appealed. Reviewing the case, the higher court affirmed the original ruling and sustained the defendant’s guilty verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening in a 40-mph zone when he approached an intersection going 70 miles per hour. A second car turned left in front of the defendant, and the defendant crashed into the second car. After the driver’s death, the State charged the defendant with one count of negligent homicide. The defendant’s case then went to trial.

The Decision

At trial, the jury had to evaluate whether the defendant was guilty, and if he was guilty, whether he should be convicted of manslaughter or of a lesser offense, negligent homicide. The jury ultimately found the defendant guilty of negligent homicide, but he promptly appealed the conviction.

May 10, 2023

Defendant in Sexual Misconduct Case Unsuccessfully Appeals Guilty Verdict

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

Late last month, the defendant in a sexual misconduct case appealed his guilty conviction before an Arizona court of appeals. The defendant had been found guilty after his stepdaughter accused him of sexually assaulting her, and he argued on appeal that the trial court should have admitted certain evidence that it kept out of the trial record. If that evidence had been admitted, argued the defendant, he might have walked away without a guilty verdict. Ultimately, the court of appeals disagreed and denied the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant lived with his wife and his wife’s daughter, who was 11 years old at the time of the alleged incidents. Twice over a period of two days, the defendant initiated sexual contact with the child, and she reported it to her school counselor later that week. Local law enforcement got involved, and the defendant was charged with sexual conduct with a minor.

When the case went to trial, the defendant’s attorney wanted to introduce into evidence two other examples of the when the child accused men of raping her. According to defense counsel, these other rapes ended up being false accusations, and the court should be allowed to consider this history when deciding whether the girl was telling the truth about the defendant in this case.

May 2, 2023

Defendant in Stalking Case Unsuccessfully Appeals Conviction before Arizona Court

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

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant asked for a reversal of his guilty conviction of stalking. The defendant had been charged and convicted after a period of nine days during which he repeatedly showed up at the victim’s house and vandalized his property. When the defendant appealed, he argued that the victim was actually acting as an officer of the state when the defendant got arrested, and the lower court was wrong not to recognize this fact during the defendant’s trial. Looking at his appeal, the higher court disagreed and ended up affirming the original conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant drove by the victim’s house several times over the course of nine days, each time slowing down to monitor what was happening on the property. The defendant also dumped trash in the yard and slashed the victim’s tires.

Tired of the stalking behavior, the victim decided to confront the defendant during a drive-by. The victim was a justice of the peace in a local Arizona county and therefore had a gun at his disposal, and when the defendant got out of his car and started moving towards the victim, the victim fired a shot to the ground as a warning. Within a few minutes, police officers were on the scene, and they arrested the defendant.

A jury found the defendant guilty of one count of stalking, and the court sentenced him to 1.5 years in prison. He appealed.

April 11, 2023

Appellate Court Affirms Arizona Defendant’s Sexual Exploitation Conviction

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

In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, a defendant convicted of sexual exploitation unsuccessfully argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support the lower court’s ruling. Originally, the defendant was charged after investigators found child pornography on a laptop in his home. The case went to trial, a jury found the defendant guilty, and the defendant promptly appealed.

Facts of the Case

This case began when investigators in Arizona were alerted to the fact that an IP address in the area had been used to download child sexual abuse material. An alert was placed on that particular IP address, and investigators noticed files of a similar nature were being downloaded on the computer. The investigators obtained a valid warrant and went to search the defendant in this case’s home.

While at the house, the investigators found several laptops. They brought the laptops for a closer look, and they eventually found the child sexual abuse material on one of the computers – specifically, the investigators found nine movie files with child pornography. The laptop did not, however, have any immediately evident connections to the defendant – instead, the username and account information on the computer all suggested that the defendant’s mom owned the device.

Eventually, the defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty as charged.

March 31, 2023

Defendant in Armed Robbery Case Asks for Reversal on Procedural Grounds

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

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.