blog.novakazlaw.comArizona DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney Blog — Published by Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Lawyers —

Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney Blog — Published by Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Lawyers — Published by James Novak Free Initial Consultation Call: (480) 413-1499 Tap To Call Tap to Text Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney Blog Published By The Law Office of James E. Novak Navigation Home Website Attorney Bio Practice Areas Contact Us Arizona DUI & Criminal Defense Attorney Blog Published on: April 30, 2024 Understanding Body Camera Policies in Arizona and the Importance of Preserving Arguments for Appeal By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. When facing criminal charges in Arizona, it’s essential to understand not only the trial process but also strategies to protect the potential avenues for appeal. In a recent judicial opinion, the Arizona Court of Appeals addressed a defendant’s arguments surrounding the legality of his arrest after he was convicted of a drug charge and later and petitioned the court with an appeal. Preserving Arguments for Appeal One of the fundamental principles of the legal system is the preservation of arguments for appeal. In the recently decided case , the defendant raised several issues during his trial, including a motion to suppress evidence. However, the court emphasized that arguments made for the first time on appeal are typically waived unless there is a fundamental and prejudicial error. The defendant first argued at trial that the officer violated his Fourth Amendment rights when conducting a search using a law enforcement database. However, the court ruled that individuals do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in such databases, leading to the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. Because the defendant properly preserved the issue, the appellate court addressed the defendant’s arguments, although they were rejected as the trial court made no error. Continue reading → By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. Posted in: Evidentiary Issues Published on: April 30, 2024 Updated: April 30, 2024 8:09 am Published on: April 17, 2024 Arizona Court Issues Important Opinion Regarding Defendants’ Rights While on Probation By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. In a recent case before an Arizona appellate court, the defendant argued that the trial court unreasonably modified the terms of his probation. The court’s response to the defendant’s argument brings up important questions such as whether a defendant on probation has the right to an attorney and whether a probationer can waive the right to the attorney if he does so knowingly and voluntarily. Ultimately, the opinion serves as a reminder that retaining qualified counsel is highly important in criminal proceedings, no matter what stage of the criminal proceedings are in play. Probation Modification The first question before the court was whether the defendant had the right to notice and a hearing before the court modified his probation terms. Apparently, the defendant had failed to comply with the terms of his probation – he failed to make court-ordered payments to the victim of his theft offense, and he committed at least one misdemeanor while on probation. The court provided the defendant with a form, which told him his probation would be extended for five additional years. The defendant signed the form. On appeal, however, the higher court concluded that this form was insufficient under the law. The defendant instead had a right to a formal hearing before signing the form to indicate he understood the change in his probation. The US and Arizona constitutions guarantee a defendant due process, and that due process had been violated here. Continue reading → By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. Posted in: Probation Violations Published on: April 17, 2024 Updated: April 17, 2024 9:46 am Published on: March 18, 2024 Defendant in Arizona Aggravated Assault Case Unsuccessfully Argues that Officer was Unqualified to Testify at Trial By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. In a recent case before an Arizona court of appeals, the defendant argued that his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault should be reversed. According to the defendant, the expert that testified on behalf of the prosecution during trial should not have been allowed to present himself as an expert. The court of appeals reviewed the officer’s qualifications, disagreed with the defendant’s analysis, and ultimately denied the defendant’s appeal. Facts of the Case According to the court-issued opinion, the defendant in this case was driving 80 miles per hour in a 40 mile per hour zone. His car hit another car from behind, and both vehicles flipped over and eventually stopped on a nearby embankment. The driver of the front car was taken to the hospital, and doctors later diagnosed her with fractured bones, fractured ribs, a broken sternum, and lacerations throughout her body. The defendant was charged with aggravated assault, and a jury convicted him as charged. The trial court then sentenced the defendant to three different prison terms for each of the three counts of aggravated assault of which he was found guilty. He promptly appealed the findings. Continue reading → By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. Posted in: Violent Crime Published on: March 18, 2024 Updated: March 18, 2024 9:25 am Published on: March 5, 2024 Arizona Court Reverses Convictions in Case Centering on Defendant’s Right to a Public Trial By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. In a recent opinion issued by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Division Two, the court overturned a defendant’s convictions for sexual conduct with a minor and indecent exposure to a minor. The opinion highlights the fact that trial courts must make a careful decision when one party requests to close the courtroom during trial. In this case, the State asked to keep nonessential people outside of the courtroom while the victim in the case testified. On appeal, the defendant argued that this decision to close the courtroom was unconstitutional, and ultimately, the higher court agreed. Proceedings Before the Lower Court The defendant was originally criminally charged after the victim, the daughter of his girlfriend, came forward and indicated that he had been sexually assaulting her for several years. According to the victim, the defendant was in charge of looking after her while her mother worked overtime, and it was during these instances that he would force her to have sex with him. The defendant’s case went to trial, and the victim took the stand to testify. Court records indicate that the girl was 16 at the time of trial and that she was very nervous about testifying. A few minutes into her testimony, the State asked the trial court judge if he would close the courtroom and tell all nonessential” individuals to leave the proceedings. The defense objected, but the trial judge decided to close the courtroom in order to give the victim some privacy. Continue reading → By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. Posted in: Sex Crimes Published on: March 5, 2024 Updated: March 18, 2024 9:24 am Published on: February 29, 2024 Arizona Supreme Court Denies Defendant’s Appeal in Case Questioning Trial Court’s Authority Over Adults Who Committed Crimes as Juveniles By James E. Novak, P.L.L.C. In a recent case before the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona, the defendant appealed his convictions and sentences stemming from a series of sexual assaults . On appeal, the defendant argued that because he committed the offenses when he was a minor, the superior court did not actually have the authority to hear his case, given that the case should have been heard in a juvenile court. Considering the defendant’s argument, the court ultimately denied the appeal but remanded the case back to the lower court for re-sentencing. Offenses at Issue In this case, the defendant sexually assaulted and abused three younger children between 2006 and 2008. At the time he committed the crimes, the defendant himself was a minor. The State learned about the offenses after the defendant turned 18 and he was charged with two counts of sexual conduct with...