James Novak Banner
Justia Lawyer Rating
LC Lead Counsel Rated
AVVO
AVVO
AVVO
AVVO
National College for DUI Defense

In a recent case before an Arizona Court of Appeals, the defendant asked for a reconsideration of his convictions and sentences for two counts of sale of dangerous drugs. Originally, the State charged the defendant when it used an informant to catch him in the act of selling methamphetamine. The defendant pled not guilty, his case went to trial, and he received a guilty verdict. Reviewing the case on appeal, the higher court examined the lower court’s record and ended up affirming the original verdict.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, investigators worked with an informant to catch the defendant selling methamphetamine. The informant contacted the defendant two separate times to buy the substance, and both times, the informant returned from the sale with a white crystal substance. After both of the purchases, detectives analyzed the material, which tested positive for methamphetamine.

The State charged the defendant with two counts of sale of dangerous drugs. His case went to trial, and during trial, the State introduced video recordings of the transactions as well as the bags with the substance inside.

Continue reading

Recently, an Arizona court of appeals sided with the State in an appeal revolving around a defendant’s conviction for attempted murder. The defendant was first charged after an incident in which he grabbed hold of a woman, assaulted her, and attempted to kill her. His case went to trial, and the jury found him guilty. On appeal, the court of appeals reviewed the trial court’s record and ultimately decided that the defendant’s conviction should remain in place.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was staying in a home for individuals who were having difficulty securing housing. A nonprofit organization had helped him secure the housing, and after a few days of staying in the home, the nonprofit’s director came by to see how everything was going. The director, along with two of her coworkers, began walking from room to room in the house.

When the director came to the defendant’s room, she informed him that he would be moving from the unit in which he had been residing. The defendant immediately pulled out a knife and tried to shut the door to slam the director in the room with him. He then attacked her and stabbed her in the neck. The director’s coworkers came to her rescue, but the defendant continued to lunge at her and attempt to hurt her.

Continue reading

Recently, a court of appeals in an Arizona criminal case affirmed the defendant’s conviction for aggravated assault. The defendant was first charged after an altercation between himself and a man standing at a bus top – the incident became violent, and the defendant shot the man once in the stomach. A jury found the defendant guilty of assaulting the man, and he promptly appealed. Reviewing the record of the case, the higher court found that the conviction was proper, denying the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was at a convenience store close to a bus stop on the evening in question. A man was standing at the bus stop, and the defendant approached him. The two men looked as if they were about to fight, but before anything happened, the defendant pulled out a gun and shot the man one time in the stomach. The man was treated for several serious physical injuries.

The State charged the defendant with two counts of aggravated assault. The case went to trial, and the defendant was found guilty. The court then sentenced the defendant to 15 years in prison.

Continue reading

Recently, an Arizona court of appeals had to decide whether to grant a defendant’s request to overturn his convictions and sentences for sexual assault, kidnapping, and sexual abuse. Originally, the defendant was charged after he dragged a coworker to a warehouse and raped her; his case went to trial, and he was found guilty. On appeal, the defendant argued that the jury should not have been privy to the confession he made to an investigator since the confession was made involuntarily. The higher court considered this argument but eventually rejected it, denying the defendant’s appeal.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant and the victim in this case worked together, and the defendant had repeatedly asked the victim to go on a date with him. The victim denied the defendant’s advances, and the defendant retaliated because of the rejection. On one morning, when the two individuals were working together, the defendant dragged the woman into a warehouse and slammed her into the wall, then raped her.

A motorcyclist driving by saw the defendant dragging the woman on the ground, and he called 911. Soon after, several police officers arrived at the scene, found the woman unconscious, and arrested the defendant.

The victim sustained multiple injuries, including a concussion and injuries consistent with strangulation. The defendant was taken to the police station. An officer read him his Miranda rights, and he immediately confessed to injuring and raping the woman.

Continue reading

An Arizona appellate court’s July 2023 decision in an assault case highlights the importance of safeguarding the defendant’s right to remain silent during interrogation. In this case, the defendant was convicted of aggravated assault and endangerment. A police officer interrogated the defendant, and he declined to answer several of her questions. Later, after a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of the crimes. He promptly appealed, and the court reversed the conviction and remanded the case for a new trial.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving by his old apartment building when he saw an acquaintance walking on the sidewalk. The defendant and the acquaintance exchanged some words, and the defendant pulled out a gun and fired several shots at the acquaintance. Police arrived at the scene and arrested the defendant.

Officers took the defendant to the station, where they read him his Miranda rights and asked a series of questions. At several points during the 30-minute interview, the defendant stated that he wanted to “pass” on the question and avoid answering for the time being. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty of aggravated assault and endangerment.

Continue reading

Recently, an individual involved in an Arizona murder case appealed a lower court’s decision to use GPS data to track his car on the night of his brother’s death. The individual was with his brother and two friends on the evening his brother was killed, and one of the friends, this case’s defendant, was charged with the murder. Soon, though, the defendant filed a motion to compel evidence, asking the court to examine GPS data from the victim’s brother’s truck. According to the defendant, this evidence would show that the victim’s brother was the one who committed the murder. The court allowed the use of the GPS evidence, and the victim’s brother challenged this decision.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant, the brother, and two other friends were all together one evening. The events that transpired are unclear, but one of the friends was murdered in the early morning by knife wounds. Six days after the death, one of the individuals, the defendant in this case, was charged with the murder. Because the brother was also present, he was labeled as a “victim” in the case.

Shortly after the State charged the defendant, the defendant filed what is called a “notice of a third-party defense,” meaning he advised the court that he thought another person committed the murder – specifically, he thought the victim’s brother was the proper suspect.

Continue reading

In a recent court of appeals case in Arizona, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence related to possession of dangerous drugs for sale. When the defendant was originally charged, he filed a motion to suppress incriminating evidence on the grounds that the detective’s search warrant that led to his arrest was legally insufficient. The court denied the request, the trial went forward, and a jury found the defendant guilty. The defendant appealed, arguing the court wrongly denied his motion to suppress.

The higher court agreed that the defendant’s argument should have been given more consideration, and it sent the case back down to the lower court. The trial court then held a hearing and denied the defendant’s motion to suppress for a second time. Again, the defendant appealed the lower court’s decision.

Facts of the Case

The main officer involved in this case received an anonymous tip that the defendant was selling drugs from his home, and the officer began to investigate. After some initial investigations, the officer requested a search warrant from the court, which would allow him to go into the defendant’s home without the defendant’s permission. The court issued the search warrant, and the officer went to the defendant’s house and found evidence of drug operations happening inside. The defendant was quickly arrested for possession of dangerous drugs for sale.

Continue reading

Last month, an Arizona court of appeals reversed a lower court’s decision not to expunge a marijuana conviction from a defendant’s record. The defendant had asked for the conviction to be stricken from his record, but the trial court originally denied the defendant’s request. Looking more closely at the case, however, the court of appeals reversed this decision and directed the lower court to remove the conviction from the defendant’s record.

Facts of the Case

In 2013, the defendant in this case and one of his acquaintances were driving one night when a police officer stopped them and began questioning them about where they were headed. Upon further investigation, the officer discovered marijuana in the car, and he learned that the defendant was going to California to buy more marijuana. The officer arrested both the defendant and his acquaintance.

The defendant was charged and convicted of conspiracy to transport marijuana for sale, and he finished the terms of his parole in 2018. In 2022, the defendant filed a petition to expunge, or remove, the conviction from his record. The trial court denied that petition and the defendant promptly appealed.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

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.

Continue reading

Contact Information