Phoenix DUI Law Blog

January 21, 2023

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

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.

October 28, 2022

Refusing a Breath Test on the Road: What Are My Rights in Arizona?

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

In our practice, we often meet with clients who are not familiar with their rights when pulled over by a police officer. Because officers will be more attentive and aggressive during the upcoming holiday season, it is especially important to learn the relevant laws so that you can know exactly what to say and do if you are pulled over for suspected drinking and driving.

In Arizona, all drivers are operating under the Implied Consent Law, A.R.S. 28-1321. This statute says that all drivers are subject to breath and chemical testing if they have been arrested for driving under the influence. Thus, if a police officer pulls you over with no reason to think you have been drinking (except under the specific circumstance of a DUI checkpoint), that officer cannot legally force you to take a test. However, if an officer suspects that you are under the influence of alcohol or drugs while operating a motor vehicle, that officer can require you to take a breath or chemical test.

However, police officers still need a warrant to conduct breath or chemical tests, unless the driver explicitly consents to the test. Refusing to expressly consent to a breath test can be risky because officers can still impose consequences for a failure to submit to the test. Importantly, these consequences include a one-year driver’s license suspension. If you refuse to submit to a test a second time, you can face two years with a suspended license.

October 12, 2022

Arizona Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal but Reduces His Sentence in DUI Case

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

In a recent opinion coming out of an Arizona court, the defendant’s appeal of his aggravated DUI conviction was denied. The court found no reason to reverse the jury’s guilty verdict; they did, however, notice that the defendant’s sentence was calculated incorrectly and that he should have been given less time in prison. Because of that error, the court modified the defendant’s sentence by taking away ten days of time in prison.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a police offer received a call from local patrons that there was disorderly conduct at a nearby bar. The officer arrived at the scene and approached the defendant in this case, who he immediately identified as the source of the patrons’ complaint. The defendant had watery eyes, slurred speech, and difficulties with balance. The officer told the defendant he needed to leave the premises on foot, which he did.

Minutes later, some of the witnesses informed the officer that the defendant had driven away in his car. The officer left the property in his own car, eventually finding the defendant driving a few miles away. At the time, the defendant’s truck was weaving significantly between lanes.

September 20, 2022

Arizona Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in DUI Case, Despite Argument that Counsel was Ineffective

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

Recently, an Arizona court ruled on a defendant’s appeal in a case involving charges of driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident. On appeal, the defendant argued that his lawyer was ineffective in the lower court proceedings and that he was not given a fair chance to litigate his case. The court considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately disagreed, affirming the original guilty conviction.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a woman in Arizona was stopped at a red light when the car behind her crashed into her automobile from behind. The woman’s car sprung forward, and she collided with the car in front of her. When the woman got out of her car, she looked behind her and saw the defendant exiting the vehicle which had been the original catalyst of the crash. He ran away, and the woman told police officers what he looked like when they arrived at the scene.

Several witnesses were also able to provide descriptions of the defendant’s appearance, and officers soon tracked him down in a nearby neighborhood. The defendant was charged with and convicted of driving under the influence and leaving the scene of an accident. He promptly appealed.

September 10, 2022

Court Sides with Defendant in Aggravated DUI Case

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

Recently, an Arizona court addressed the State’s appeal in a case involving aggravated and extreme aggravated driving under the influence. On appeal, the State argued that the lower court should not have allowed the defendant to be granted an early end to her probation. Looking at the text of the statute involved, the court disagreed with the State and affirmed that it was acceptable for the defendant’s probation to be terminated early.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was charged in 2019 with multiple counts of aggravated and extreme aggravated driving under the influence. After being charged, the defendant sold her car to pay for an attorney to represent her in criminal court. She pled guilty and was sentenced to two years of supervised probation with a 45-day jail sentence.

The sentencing order stated specifically that all but 14 days of the sentence could be suspended if the defendant put a “certified ignition interlock device” on any car she operated for a period of 12 months. This device would allow for more surveillance of the defendant’s driving and would keep her from committing the same offense again.

August 31, 2022

Know Your Rights: Implied Consent and Suspected DUIs in Arizona

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

Too often in our practice, we meet with clients that are not aware of their rights when on the road in Arizona. If a police officer pulls you over for suspected driving under the influence, there are laws that are important to know and remember as you interact with the officer. Perhaps most importantly, Arizona’s implied consent law makes it difficult for drivers to refuse to take a blood, breath, or urine test.

Implied Consent Law

Under the implied consent law, any person operating a motor vehicle in Arizona automatically gives consent to a test that allows law enforcement to determine alcohol concentration or drug content if that person is arrested for a DUI. Thus, if an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a driver is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, the officer can require that driver to take any test of the officer’s choice. The officer can also legally require this test if he or she suspects a driver under the age of 21 has any alcohol in their body.

If the driver refuses the test, the officer can serve a notice of a 12-month suspension of the driver’s license or a notice of suspension of the privilege to drive (if the driver is from a different state). Importantly, a driver who refuses the test can be subject to a warrant that allows the officer to take a blood sample even despite their refusal.