What Did the Court Decide?

The court affirmed all of Jack Thompson Jr.’s convictions and sentences. Thompson was found guilty of possession of methamphetamine for sale, possession of diazepam, possession of fentanyl, and possession of drug paraphernalia. His longest sentence was twenty years of “flat time”—meaning no early release.

Here is what happened. In 2020, a Payson police sergeant conducted undercover surveillance near Thompson’s home. Officers noticed known drug offenders visiting the house regularly. They also spotted drones flying around the area, which the sergeant believed were being used to watch for police. Based on this surveillance and neighbor complaints, police got a search warrant.

When officers searched the property, they found drugs, paraphernalia, drone remotes, and digital scales. Thompson was later pulled over during a traffic stop. Police found a large amount of cash on him and two drones in his car. A second search warrant allowed officers to go through his cell phone, where they found text messages using code words to discuss drug sales.

Why Does This Matter for Your Case?

This ruling matters because it confirms three things Arizona prosecutors can do when building a drug case against you.

First, your text messages can be used as evidence. The court ruled that messages from other people on Thompson’s phone were not hearsay (out-of-court statements that are normally excluded). Why? Because the state did not use those messages to prove the other people wanted to buy drugs. Instead, prosecutors used them to decode Thompson’s own replies, which showed he had drugs for sale. Under Arizona Rule of Evidence 801, a defendant’s own statements are considered “opposing party statements” and are always admissible.

Second, a police officer can testify as a drug expert and interpret your messages. Thompson argued that the sergeant should not have been allowed to tell the jury that the texts showed “obvious drug sales.” The court disagreed. Under Arizona Rule of Evidence 702, expert testimony is allowed when it helps the jury understand the evidence. Under Rule 704, an expert can even give an opinion on the “ultimate issue”—in this case, whether the drugs were possessed for sale—as long as the proper foundation is laid.

Third, code words can be linked to specific drugs. Thompson argued that even if “coffee” was a code word for drugs, the state could not prove it meant methamphetamine specifically. The court rejected this argument. The sergeant testified, based on years of narcotics experience, that “the richest kind of coffee” meant “very strong methamphetamine.” The court found this expert testimony sufficient.

Drug cases involving text message evidence and expert witness testimony require a defense attorney who understands how prosecutors build these arguments. James Novak is a former Maricopa County prosecutor with an engineering background who brings a technical, analytical approach to evaluating digital evidence. Learn more about drug charge defense strategies.

How Does This Affect Drug Possession for Sale Charges in Arizona?

Under A.R.S. § 13-3407(A)(2), it is illegal to possess a dangerous drug for sale. Methamphetamine is classified as a dangerous drug. The prosecution does not have to catch you in the act of selling. They can use circumstantial evidence—such as text messages, large amounts of cash, scales, and an officer’s expert opinion—to prove you intended to sell.

The penalties are severe. Methamphetamine possession for sale is a Class 2 felony with a presumptive sentence of ten years. Under A.R.S. § 13-3407(F), a conviction for selling meth carries mandatory “flat time”—no probation, no pardon, and no early release until you serve every day of your sentence. For repeat offenders like Thompson, who was sentenced as a category-three repetitive offender, the aggravated range goes up to thirty-five years under A.R.S. § 13-703(J).

Thompson also argued his twenty-year flat-time sentence was excessive because he was seventy years old and in poor health. The court acknowledged that age can be a factor in sentencing but declined to reduce the sentence because it fell within the statutory limits and the trial court had properly weighed aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can my text messages be used against me in a drug case?

Yes. Under Arizona law, your own text messages are considered “opposing party statements” and are admissible at trial. Messages from other people on your phone may also be admitted—not to prove what those people said, but to provide context for your replies.

Can a police officer interpret coded language in my texts?

Yes. If an officer has training and experience with drug terminology, the court may qualify them as an expert witness. That officer can then explain to the jury what coded words and phrases mean, even if the interpretation touches on the key question of whether drugs were possessed for sale.

What is “flat time” in Arizona drug sentencing?

Flat time means you must serve every day of your prison sentence with no opportunity for early release, probation, or pardon. Under A.R.S. § 13-3407(F), flat time is mandatory for anyone convicted of possessing methamphetamine for sale in Arizona.

Talk to a Maricopa County Drug Defense Attorney

If you are facing drug charges in Phoenix, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler, Gilbert, Scottsdale, or anywhere in Maricopa County, the stakes are too high to wait. James Novak is a former prosecutor with four advanced degrees—including a B.S. in Engineering that gives him a technical edge in challenging forensic evidence and digital data. He has secured dozens of dismissals on serious drug and DUI charges across Maricopa County courts. Call (480) 413-1499 or contact the firm online for a free initial consultation. Available 24/7. Flat fees, no hidden costs.

In the case before the Arizona court, the defendant appealed a trial court’s decision to sentence him to 15 years in prison for a) possession of a narcotic drug for sale and b) violating the terms of probation. According to the defendant, it was unfair that the trial court sentenced him based on the fact that he was guilty of two previous felony convictions. Instead, the court should have based the sentence on only one previous felony conviction, which would have resulted in a lesser sentence.

The higher court reviewed the trial record and found that the defendant presented no evidence to indicate that he was guilty of only one prior felony conviction instead of two. Instead, he vaguely testified that the two armed robberies he committed in the past happened “on the same occasion in his early life.” The prosecution, meanwhile, presented evidence from two separate court hearings in 2015 that were based on two separate robberies, one on August 22, 2015, and a second on September 1, 2015. This evidence showed that there were, indeed, two previous felony convictions.

The court upheld the trial court’s sentencing decision. The case is important because it serves as a reminder that, according to Arizona law, a “defendant may be subjected to longer prison terms as a category three repetitive offender than as a category two repetitive offender.”

This means, essentially, that if you have been found guilty of multiple offenses in the past, and you face a conviction for a third offense, you will be sentenced more harshly than if you had only been found guilty of one prior offense. Trial courts consider the totality of a defendant’s record when deciding how to sentence the defendant, and it is important to retain an attorney that knows how to fight these kinds of decisions to keep your sentence as light as possible.

Do You Need a Maricopa County Criminal Defense Lawyer in Your Corner?

If you or a loved one has been criminally charged in Arizona, give our office a call to talk through a defense strategy that works for you. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we take pride in our personalized, client-centered strategy as we navigate the Arizona criminal legal landscape. Our team is well-versed in aggressive litigation tactics, and we are uniquely positioned to offer you high quality representation in your criminal legal matter.

If you haven’t yet spoken with an experienced Maricopa County criminal defense lawyer about your case, call us today for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible to discuss next steps.

Motion to Suppress

The defendant in this case originally filed a motion to suppress after an officer found him with fentanyl. The lead-up to the defendant’s arrest went as follows: the defendant and an acquaintance were chatting at a local gas station. An officer saw the pair repeatedly enter and exit a car, then they drove off together. Finding their behavior suspicious, the officer radioed dispatch to see if either person had active arrest warrants. Dispatch reported back that while there were no active warrants, the defendant’s acquaintance, who was driving the vehicle, had an invalid driver’s license.

The officer conducted a traffic stop, and he inspected the driver’s license. As it turns out, the driver’s license was valid, and the dispatcher had made a mistake in reporting the opposite. While the officer was still chatting with the pair, a third individual approached the car and informed the group that the defendant had dropped something near the front of the car. As it turned out, this dropped item was the defendant’s bottle of blue pills, later identified as fentanyl.

After the defendant was criminally charged, he asked the trial court to suppress the evidence. The trial court denied his motion.

Good-Faith Exception

The higher court’s job, then, was to review the lower court’s decision on the motion to suppress. In certain circumstances, said the court, it would have made sense to grant the motion, given the fact that the officer did not have a legal reason to stop the car. The driver’s license was, after all, valid.

However, the court found that the dispatcher made an honest mistake in gathering incorrect intel on the driver’s license. Therefore, his actions fell under the “good-faith exception” to the normal suppression standards, and the resulting incriminating evidence was admissible. Overall, this exception can be frustrating for defendants, especially in circumstances where the officer should not have had grounds to conduct a traffic stop in the first place.

Do You Need a Phoenix Drug Attorney for Your Case?

Fighting drug charges is no small matter, and if you are trying to get your charges dismissed, you need an experienced Phoenix drug attorney by your side. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we take pride in our personalized and zealous approach for each case we litigate. Our clients are our top priority, and we don’t stop fighting for the freedom of the accused.

If you are in need of a qualified Phoenix drug attorney, give us a call today for a free and confidential consultation at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to tell us about your individual case and have an attorney reach back out to you as soon as possible.

Facts of the Case

The opinion details the case’s underlying incident, which began when local police officers installed a camera on a pole outside the defendant’s home to capture footage of the surroundings. Officers eventually saw the defendant bringing a large duffle bag into his car, which they suspected contained drugs. They initiated a traffic stop and immediately found $23,000 in cash along with a large sum of Adderall pills in the defendant’s car.

The officers then obtained a warrant to search the defendant’s home. Upon effectuating the search, the officers found over $200,000 in cash, along with 981 fentanyl pills, two handguns, and drug paraphernalia. The State charged the defendant with the following offenses: possession of narcotic drugs for sale, money laundering, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant’s case went to trial, and he was found guilty. The defendant promptly appealed.

The Court’s Decision

On appeal, the defendant’s argument was that the evidence was insufficient to support his guilty conviction. He argued that the State did not meet its burden of proving every element of the crime of possession of drug paraphernalia, and therefore the conviction should be vacated. Specifically, the defendant took issue with the police officer’s testimony – he indicated that he did not personally see the drug paraphernalia in the defendant’s room, but instead he just knew it came from the defendant’s residence more generally. Because the officer did not specifically see the paraphernalia in the defendant’s room, the evidence was insufficient to support a guilty finding.

The higher court reviewed the defendant’s argument but ultimately disagreed. According to the court, the jury had sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty, even though the officer had not seen the drug paraphernalia in the defendant’s room. There was evidence that pills were found all around the defendant’s home, and the officer testified that given the quantity of drugs and amount of cash, it was likely drug offenses were involved. The defendant’s attorney, for his part, did not offer any other explanation for the drugs and cash.

Therefore, said the court, the evidence was sufficient, and the defendant’s appeal would be denied.

Have You Found a Maricopa County Drug Attorney for Your Legal Needs?

At The Law Office of James E. Novak, we take pride in providing thorough, detail-oriented representation that keeps our clients’ needs front and center. If you are looking for a Maricopa County drug attorney to take care of your charges, look no further. For a free and confidential consultation with our team, call us today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to have a member of our team get back in touch with you as soon as possible.

Factual and Procedural History

The defendant in this case was working as an informant for the government in Arizona. Under special instructions, he was supposed to engage in drug deals when directed by his handler, and he was otherwise supposed to refrain from engaging in any drug activity. One day, when the defendant’s handler was driving by the home of a known drug dealer, he noticed the defendant’s car in the driveway. He later pulled the defendant over for a traffic stop and found methamphetamine on his person.

The handler arrested the defendant, and the State charged the defendant with possession of a dangerous drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. The case went to trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty. He was sentenced to ten years in prison. The defendant promptly appealed the decision.

The Court’s Decision

The higher court reviewed the defendant’s argument on appeal and considered his argument, which was that there was not a proper chain of custody to authenticate the evidence of the methamphetamine. According to the defendant, it was not entirely clear how the evidence got from his person to evidence storage to the prosecution, and this chain of custody was important to ensure the evidence was not at all tampered with.

The court reviewed the chain of custody thoroughly and ended up deciding that there were no errors. The detective that testified during trial indicated that nothing was out of the ordinary in how the evidence was processed, and that the evidence seemingly followed all standard procedures laid out by his unit. Without any evidence that the evidence was in any way altered, the court did not have grounds to grant the defendant’s request.

With that, the defendant’s appeal was denied, and his convictions were affirmed.

Do You Need a Phoenix Drug Attorney to Stand by Your Side?

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges in Arizona, you need a top-notch, aggressive Phoenix drug attorney to help you fight your charges. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we offer personalized solutions for every one of our clients, because we recognize that no case is the same. For representation that keeps your best interests front and center, give us a call today for a free and confidential consultation. We can be reached at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online “contact us” form to have a Phoenix drug attorney to get back to you as soon as possible about your case.

The defendant in the recently decided case appealed his conviction for the sale or transportation of dangerous drugs and possession of paraphernalia. The case revolves around the use of an anticipatory search warrant obtained by detectives to place a GPS tracking device on the defendant’s vehicle, suspected of transporting narcotics. The warrant was based on information from a confidential informant about an older male, matching the description of the defendant who would be delivering narcotics to a specific address in Chino Valley.

The Challenge of Specificity

The defendant’s defense centered on challenging the validity of the search warrant, arguing that it lacked the necessary specificity and failed to establish probable cause. The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires search warrants to particularly describe the places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The crucial question here is whether the warrant provided enough specific details to prevent mistaken searches and seizures.

The Anticipatory Nature of the Warrant

The search warrant, in this case, was anticipatory, meaning it was conditioned on certain events occurring, such as live surveillance confirming the arrival of a vehicle matching the description and the informant confirming the delivery of drugs during that time. The warrant was then updated with the defendant’s identity after the events unfolded. The defendant argued that because the warrant did not initially identify him or his vehicle, it lacked probable cause.

Legal Analysis

The court, in its decision, highlighted that the Fourth Amendment requires sufficient particularity, ensuring executing officers can identify the premises and items with reasonable effort. The court also emphasized that probable cause is established when there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.

The court acknowledged that the GPS search warrant did not contain the defendant’s name or vehicle license plate number initially, as this information was unknown at the time of obtaining the warrant. However, it found that the warrant described an older male driving a metallic truck with enough particularity to allow detectives to identify the vehicle and its driver without mistakenly searching elsewhere.

Ultimately, the court affirmed the conviction, asserting that the GPS search warrant was sufficiently particular and supported by probable cause. This decision highlights the challenges defendants face when contesting search warrants in Arizona criminal cases. People charged with crimes in Arizona should be aware of the legal intricacies involved in challenging evidence obtained through such warrants and seek competent legal representation to navigate these complexities effectively.

Have You Been Arrested or Charged with a Crime?

Navigating the legal landscape can be challenging, but understanding the nuances of search warrant challenges is essential for anyone facing criminal charges in Arizona. If you find yourself in such a situation, consult with an experienced Arizona criminal defense attorney with the Law Office of James E. Novak, and we can start preparing your defense. We represent people charged with all types of Arizona crimes, including drug offenses. To schedule a no obligation consultation to discuss your case, call 480-413-1499 or reach out through our online form.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, local police officers received a call one evening regarding an alleged abandoned car in a residential neighborhood. Officers arrived to investigate, at which point the car began moving. Officers learned that the defendant was in the driver’s seat, and he started taking the car westbound. As the police car followed, the defendant committed a traffic violation by cutting across several lanes of traffic at once.

The officers conducted a traffic stop and subsequently found marijuana, a gun, and a digital scale in the car. They arrested the defendant, and he was charged accordingly.

The Decision

Before trial, the defendant moved to suppress the evidence found in his vehicle. According to the defendant, the officers did not have sufficient legal basis to pull him over in the first place. Without this justification, the evidence the officers found should not be admitted into the record. After reviewing the defendant’s motion, the court scheduled a hearing to decide on whether the evidence should be suppressed.

At that hearing, the court asked the defendant’s attorney who he wanted to testify first. The attorney indicated that the defendant would be the first to testify, and he took the stand to talk about the incidents that led to the arrest. After hearing from all of the necessary witnesses, the court decided to deny the motion to suppress.

Later, the defendant appealed this decision by arguing that it was unfair for the court to have him testify first. Because he had already made out the basic elements of his case to suppress the evidence, the government should have had the burden of proving its case before he attempted to prove his.

The court, however, disagreed with the defendant. The judge had specifically asked the defense attorney who he wanted to testify first, and the attorney had chosen his own client. Also, said the court, even if the testimony came out of order, it did not ultimately have an effect on who had the higher burden in proving their case.

Therefore, said the court, the defendant’s appeal would be denied.

Are You Looking for a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

If you or a loved one is facing Arizona drug charges, don’t wait – find an expert, aggressive defense attorney that will stand by your side when the going gets though. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we have the experience and skills to provide you top-notch representation for your criminal legal needs. For a free and confidential consultation, call us today at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was driving one evening when an officer stopped him because his license plate lamps were broken. When asked for his license and registration, the defendant admitted that he did not have any registration with him. At that point, the officer arrested and searched the defendant.

The officer quickly found $10,000 in cash as well as a briefcase with methamphetamine, heroin, cash, and firearms. The defendant was criminally charged, and his case went to trial. During trial, the State presented evidence that the defendant had been texting with various individuals about how to sell the drugs in his car.

The jury found the defendant guilty of transportation of dangerous drugs for sale. The trial court sentenced him to over 27 years in prison, and the defendant promptly appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the higher court went through the record of the case to investigate and figure out if there were any errors on the trial court’s part. Specifically, the defendant’s attorney was concerned that the trial court had not properly advised the defendant on the State’s plea offer and the risks of proceeding to trial. It was the defendant’s right to be properly informed of the offer and the possible consequences of trial, and he would be entitled to a reversal if the court found he did not receive all of the relevant information on this topic.

Looking at the record, the court of appeals determined that the trial court had set a date for a hearing with the defendant so that it could specifically advise him about the plea offer and the risks of moving forward with trial. The defendant, however, failed to appear for that hearing. Even if the court failed the defendant by neglecting to take additional action to make sure he was informed, there was no evidence to suggest that the defendant was unsure about moving toward trial or that he did not understand his rights under the law. Therefore, said the court, the defendant’s guilty conviction would be affirmed.

Are You Fighting Drug Charges in the State of Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we know what it takes to get your drug charges dropped, and we have 17 years of experience getting positive results for our clients in Arizona. If you or a loved one is in need of representation – don’t wait; give us a call today. We offer free and confidential consultations at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to get your questions answered.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant in this case was treating an adolescent girl for ongoing issues with depression. The defendant claimed to have experience with plant medicine, and he told the girl that he could help solve her depression with a certain kind of mushroom.

Over time, the defendant and the girl developed a friendly relationship. Soon, however, the defendant invited the girl on a camping trip, and the relationship quickly took a turn. The defendant told the girl to consume mushrooms that would make her high, and he invited the girl to have sex with him and his wife, who was also on the camping trip.

The girl at first refused but eventually gave in, ultimately taking the drugs and having sex with the defendant and his wife. After the camping trip, the girl told her dad what had happened. Immediately the dad pressed charges, and the defendant’s case eventually went to trial. The jury found the defendant guilty, and he was sentenced to ten years in prison and a lifetime probation term. The defendant promptly appealed.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant’s main argument was that the prosecuting attorney made an error that unfairly biased the jury in favor of the State. When the prosecutor was making his opening statement, he said things to the jury like, “we believe you are reasonable people” and “we believe the burden of proof will be met in this case.” According to the defendant, the statements starting with “we believe” could have led the jury to believe that the government depended on them to find the defendant guilty. The statements also could have suggested that information not in the record supported the witness’s testimony.

The court reviewed the prosecutor’s statements, and it ultimately determined that the defendant was not eligible for an entirely new trial. While it might have been preferable for the attorney to refrain from using the phrase “we believe”, this phrase in itself did not amount to the prosecutor injecting his own personal opinions in the trial. The jury was well-prepared to rule on the evidence presented to them, and the defendant’s appeal was thus denied.

Are You Facing Criminal Charges in Arizona?

If you or a loved one is facing Arizona drug charges or a sex offense, all your litigation experts at the Law Office of James E. Novak. We are dedicated to providing you with the strongest defense possible, regardless of the severity of the charges you face. For your free and confidential consultation, give us a call today at 480-413-1499. You can also fill out our online form to have your questions answered.

Facts of the Case

One evening in May 2019, a police officer was on patrol when he saw that a nearby vehicle had expired registration, and he activated his siren to conduct a traffic stop. While pulling the vehicle over, the officer noticed an individual moving frantically in the back seat.

When the officer approached the car, he immediately noticed a package on the floor of the car, and the officer suspected there were drugs inside the package. It appeared as though the person in the back seat, who ended up becoming the defendant in this case, was trying to hide the package with his legs. The officer asked the driver and the defendant to step outside of the vehicle.

The officer ran lab tests on the substance inside the package and discovered that the driver and the defendant were transporting three ounces of methamphetamine in their car. The case went to trial, and the defendant was convicted of transportation of a dangerous drug.

The Decision

On appeal, the court had to decide whether there was any reason to reverse the defendant’s conviction. Upon reviewing the case, the court noticed an error committed by the lower court: the trial court had stated that the defendant was guilty of two crimes when the jury had only found the defendant guilty of one. At trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of transportation of a dangerous drug; the court, however, calculated the defendant’s sentence as if he had been found guilty of two crimes – transportation of a dangerous drug and possession of a dangerous drug.

The two crimes, said the higher court, are different, and the defendant should have only received a sentence for one of them. The trial court’s written order directly conflicted with the oral ruling the court gave at the defendant’s sentencing hearing, during which the judge properly indicated that the defendant had been found guilty of only one crime. Because there was a grave error in the written order, the higher court vacated the conviction for possession of a dangerous drug. The court also took off eight years of the defendant’s sentence.

Are You Searching for a Criminal Defense Attorney in Arizona?

At the Law Office of James E. Novak, we represent Arizona defendants in all sorts of drug cases – we believe that no case is too big or too small and that every client is worthy of our undivided attention. For a free and confidential consultation to talk about your case, give us a call at (480) 413-1499. You can also fill out the online form to have your questions answered.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a state trooper stopped the defendant and her friend because they had been following other cars too closely on the road one evening. The officer pulled the car over, asked the defendant and her friend a few questions, and requested that each individual hand over their identification. Neither the defendant nor her friend had a valid driver’s license.

The officer asked the pair if his dog could sniff around the car, and they both consented to the sniff. At that point, the dog alerted near the passenger door, and a search of the car revealed 275.6 grams of heroin under the defendant’s seat. A second search of the car revealed an additional 272.2 grams of heroin.

The defendant was charged and convicted of possession of a narcotic drug for sale.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that the officer’s use of the dog to search the car improperly extended the traffic stop. Under case law, dog sniffs conducted during lawful traffic stops are acceptable as long as they do not prolong the traffic stop “beyond the amount of time reasonably necessary.” Here, said the defendant, the dog sniff prolonged the traffic stop unnecessarily and thus violated her constitutional rights.

The court examined the record in the case and ultimately disagreed with the defendant. The officer requested identification from both of the individuals in the car, and the defendant could only provide an Arizona identification card, while the driver could only provide a suspended license. Thus, it was reasonable for the officer to further investigate the situation and see if there was any suspicious activity going on in or around the car.

Given this suspicion, the officer was within his rights to ask the defendant and her friend if his dog could conduct a sniff search of the car. The defendant’s rights were thus not violated, and her appeal was denied.

Are You Facing Drug Charges in the State of Arizona?

Speaking with a police officer in Arizona can be an incredibly scary experience, and we meet too many clients who incriminate themselves in these interactions without knowing their rights or the options available to them. At the Law Office of James E. Novak, our Phoenix criminal defense attorney prides himself on being an expert in the individual rights of criminal defendants, and we make sure each one of our clients is well-versed in the opportunities they have to defend their freedom. For a free and confidential consultation, give us a call today at 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, the defendant was arrested and charged with possession or use of dangerous drugs and possession of drug paraphernalia. The defendant was on parole at the time and had at least three prior felony convictions, placing him in Category 3 as a repeat offender. His prior convictions were possession of a dangerous drug, a class 4 felony, committed on April 2, 2016, possession of drug paraphernalia, a class 6 felony, committed on November 20, 2013, and a class 6 felony, committed on December 26, 2013.

The Decision

On appeal, the defendant argued that his convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia, committed on November 20, 2013, and December 26, 2013, do not qualify as historical prior felony convictions because he committed those offenses more than five years before he committed the present offenses on June 2, 2019. In superior court, the defendant and defense counsel expressly stated that they acknowledged his parole status and his three prior felony convictions. The appeals court found that because the defendant did not argue to the superior court that his 2013 drug offenses were too remote in time to qualify as historical prior felony convictions, the appeals court could only review the decision for fundamental error. To prevail under fundamental error review, the defendant must establish both that fundamental error exists and that the error caused him prejudice. Fundamental error review goes to the foundation of the case, deprives the defendant of a right essential to his defense, or is of such magnitude that the defendant could not possibly have received a fair trial. The appeals court acknowledged that the improper use of a conviction as a historical prior felony conviction for enhancement purposes constitutes a fundamental error.

However, the appeals court holds that the defendant’s silence on this issue in the superior court trial prevents him from effectively bringing this issue on appeal. The opinion states that the burden of persuasion borne by a defendant in fundamental error review does not permit him to remain silent at trial and reserve the ‘hole card’ of a later appeal on a matter that was curable at trial. Regardless, the appeals court holds points out that two of the defendant’s felonies are ‘forever’ historical priors, qualifying the defendant as “a category three offender even without accounting for the tolling [of time]from his incarceration” as disputed on appeal. The court of appeals affirmed the superior court decision in full.

Have You Been Charged with a Drug Crime in Arizona?

If you are facing criminal charges for a drug crime in Arizona, call us at The Law Office of James E. Novak. We are committed to protecting your rights and examining every aspect of your case to find the holes in the prosecution’s charges against you. For a free and confidential consultation, you can call us at 480-413-1499. You can also send us an online message to have your questions answered.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, a confidential informant reached out to the police and offered to set up a drug deal with a specific dealer he knew – that dealer later became the defendant in this case. When the police officers agreed to the set-up, the officers met up with the informant and observed as he reached out to the defendant to organize the logistics of the transaction. The officers then drove the informant to the previously agreed-upon location, which was a parking lot nearby.

The officers observed the drug deal take place, then picked up the informant and retrieved the drugs as well as the recording device that were both on his person. The officers then obtained a search warrant to retrieve the defendant’s private Facebook messages. After further investigations, the defendant was charged with the sale of a dangerous drug as well as participating in a criminal syndicate.

The Decision

The defendant was found guilty at trial, and she promptly appealed. The defendant’s main argument on appeal was that the prosecution wrongfully used her Facebook messages against her at trial. According to the defendant, the prosecution was supposed to introduce additional evidence proving that the Facebook messages indeed belonged to the defendant. Without this additional evidence, it was possible the prosecution could have fabricated the messages, and there was no way for the jury to be sure that the messages came from her account. It was wrong, said the defendant, for the trial court to allow these messages into evidence without requiring the additional authentication they needed.

The court looked at Arizona law, which states that a party offering social media communications as evidence must provide some kind of circumstantial evidence to establish the authenticity of those messages. In this case, the prosecution had offered testimony from the informant, who told the jury that the messages reflected the defendant’s particular method of speaking. Because the informant had communicated with the defendant in the past, the court decided that he was a credible source and was able to provide the necessary evidence to show the authenticity of the messages.

Because of the evidence provided by the informant, the court disagreed with the defendant and denied her appeal.

Have You Been Charged with Drug-Related Crimes in Arizona?

If you or a loved one are facing drug crimes in the state of Arizona, give us a call at The Law Office of James E. Novak. We offer high-quality litigation that takes into account your individual facts and circumstances so that you can be sure you are receiving the personalized and aggressive representation that you deserve. Call us today for a free and confidential consultation at 480-413-1499. You can also send us a message online to have your questions answered.

According to the facts discussed in the appellate opinion, the defendant was a passenger in a car that was stopped for a traffic violation in 2018. Police noticed the defendant was wanted for outstanding warrants, and placed him under arrest for the warrants after confirming his identity. At the time of the stop, the defendant was holding a backpack between his legs. When arresting the defendant, the police asked him if he wanted to take the backpack with him, and he responded that it was not his backpack.

Police inventoried the backpack, and it was later searched. Police found illegal drugs and paraphernalia in the backpack and the defendant was charged with felony drug crimes as a result. Before trial, the defendant challenged the admission of the evidence found in the backpack, claiming that he never consented to the search and that there was not a warrant or probable cause that would justify the police to perform the search without the defendant’s consent. The trial court denied the defendant’s motion, ruling that the defendant abandoned any claim to the backpack when he was asked if it belonged to him and that he did not have the right to challenge the search at a later time. As a result of this ruling, the case went to trial, and the defendant was convicted of the crimes he was charged with.

The defendant appealed the evidentiary ruling to the Arizona Court of Appeals, where the lower court ruling was upheld. The Court found that Arizona law gives people no privacy interest in the abandoned property, and since the defendant claimed the property was not his, he had abandoned it. Although the jury necessarily found that the defendant possessed the backpack at the time of the stop in order to convict him, this does not mean that the defendant had a privacy interest in the backpack at the time the search was performed. As a result of these rulings, the defendant’s conviction will stand.

Obtaining Legal Counsel to Defend Against Drug Charges

If you or a loved one has been arrested or charged with an Arizona drug crime, obtaining qualified legal counsel as soon as possible after police begin questioning you will increase your chances of beating the charges against you. Law enforcement officers and prosecutors are experienced in getting criminal defendants to give up their rights and incriminate themselves, and without a skilled Arizona criminal defense attorney by your side, you’ll be at a great disadvantage through the process. The dedicated Arizona criminal defense lawyers at the Law Office of James E. Novak can help mount your defense. If you’ve been accused of a crime, contact us and we’ll start working on your defense today. To schedule a free consultation and discuss your case, call 480-413-1499.

Facts of the Case

According to the opinion, an officer was patrolling one evening when he noticed a pickup truck on the road that he identified as “lifted” – it had no rear fender splash guards, in violation of Arizona law. The officer was particularly familiar with this kind of pickup truck because it was his “dream” truck, so it was easy for him to recognize that something was awry. Pulling the truck over and initiating the traffic stop, the officer began speaking with the driver, the defendant in this case.

The officer and the defendant spoke for about ten minutes, and the officer noticed that the defendant seemed nervous. Based on the defendant’s behavior, the officer began to suspect criminal activity. He also noted that the defendant claimed he had not been to California in three years, but the officer knew from a records check that the defendant had been there just one month earlier. The officer asked if he could search the defendant’s car, and the defendant declined the search request but agreed that the officer’s dog could search the exterior of the vehicle. Upon this search, the officer immediately uncovered 50 pounds of methamphetamine in the truck.

The Decision

The defendant was convicted of transportation of dangerous drugs for sale. His main argument on appeal was that the officer did not have enough reason to initiate the traffic stop, and thus that the incriminating evidence should have been suppressed. The court considered the defendant’s argument but ultimately disagreed. It was reasonable, said the court, given the officer’s particular fondness with this kind of truck, that he would know the vehicle lacked the necessary fear render splash guards. An awareness of this violation was, said the court, enough reason for the officer to pull the defendant over.

The defendant also argued that the officer unnecessarily prolonged the traffic stop, which ultimately led to the officer finding the methamphetamine. Again, the court disagreed. Looking at footage from the officer’s body camera, the court concluded that the conversation between the officer and the defendant was consensual. The officer was not forcing the defendant to speak against his will, thus the defendant could have ended the conversation if he had wanted to do so. Thus, said the court, the traffic stop was reasonable in nature, and the drug evidence should not have been suppressed.

Disagreeing with both of the defendant’s arguments, the court denied the appeal and affirmed the defendant’s verdict.

Have You Been Charged with Drug Possession in Arizona?

If you have found yourself fighting drug charges in Arizona, call the Law Office of James E. Novak. We are committed to providing you with the best defense strategy possible, fighting for your future every step of the way. For a free and confidential consultation, call us at 480-413-1499. You can also send us an online message to have your questions answered.

The Facts of the Case

According to the court’s opinion, the Prescott Police Department was conducting a narcotics surveillance on a Roadway Inn. Evidently, police officers watched as an individual entered the defendant’s hotel room, stayed for less than five minutes, and then left. Police pulled the individual over for an insurance violation, searched their car, and found one gram of meth.

Shortly after this, the defendant left the hotel room. Police followed him, eventually pulling him over for driving with a revoked license. They then searched the defendant’s car, finding a glass pipe with a “burnt crystalline substance” inside. Based on this, police officers obtained a search warrant for the defendant’s hotel room, where they found 4.5 ounces of meth, a scale, and a ledger. Subsequent testing revealed that the substance was methamphetamine. The police officers also recovered the defendant’s cell phone, which contained messages from several people looking to buy drugs.

Officers took the defendant in for questioning. During the interrogation, the defendant admitted to buying four or five ounces of meth a few days before. He also confessed that he sold meth to several others for $40 a gram.

At trial, the defendant testified in his own defense, explaining that he possessed the meth and owned the scale but did not admit to selling the meth. However, the jury found him guilty of both possession of dangerous drugs for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court sentenced the defendant to 7.5 years in jail.

On appeal, the court explained that the prosecution’s evidence, as well as the defendant’s testimony, was sufficient to prove that he possessed the methamphetamine for sale. While it’s likely that the jury would have found the defendant guilty without his own testimony, it is unclear how the defendant thought his testimony would help him avoid a conviction. By admitting to law enforcement that he sold meth in the days leading up to his arrest, the defendant essentially talked himself into a conviction. While the defendant may have litigated a pre-trial motion to suppress his statement, the court did not mention any such motion in its opinion.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Drug Crime?

If you were recently arrested for an Arizona drug crime, it is important that you don’t give up hope. Even if you made a statement and the evidence appears to be stacked against you, the Law Offices of James E. Novak can help. Attorney Novak is a veteran Tempe criminal defense attorney with decades of experience both prosecuting and defending all types of drug offenses. He can help you develop a strong defense to the charges you face and ensure that your interests are protected every step of the way. To learn more, call 480-413-1499 today, or fill out our online contact form.

The officer determined that the driver was not impaired. As the officer was preparing paperwork to issue a warning, the officer asked the driver about their relationship to one another and where they were headed, to which the driver responded. After escorting the driver back to his car, the officer questioned the other passenger about their relationship to one another and where they were headed. The driver of the vehicle and the passenger of the vehicle gave different answers. The passenger then admitted to there being a small amount of marijuana in the dispensary bag. The officer issued the warning.

The officer then asked the driver about the bag, and the driver stated that there was no marijuana in the car. Neither passenger presented a medical marijuana card. The officer detained both passengers and found various drugs and instruments in the vehicle.

At trial, the court denied the defendant’s motion to suppress based on the officer’s reasonable suspicion for the stop.

The Appellate Decision

On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny the defendant’s motion to suppress. The appellate court explained that under the automobile exception, a vehicle can be searched without a warrant if there is probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime has been committed. The smell of marijuana may give an officer probable cause to search in some cases, but generally only when combined with other factors.

Here, the officer’s initial stop was justified because he had reasonable suspicion that the driver of the vehicle could have been impaired or asleep due to the vehicle driving over highway fog lines. Also, the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle after smelling marijuana and smelling a strong scent of air fresheners, suggesting that the passengers attempted to conceal drugs. Additionally, the passengers gave conflicting information about their relationship and where they were headed. Thus, the court determined that there was probable cause to search the vehicle under the automobile exception.

Have You Been Arrested for an Arizona Marijuana Offense?

If you were recently arrested for a marijuana offense in Arizona, including possession, selling, cultivating, or driving under the influence, contact the Law Office of James E. Novak. Attorney Novak has extensive experience as a criminal defense lawyer handling all types of serious drug crimes. Attorney Novak provides clients with zealous advocacy. Call the Law Office of James E. Novak at (480) 413-1499 to schedule a free consultation to discuss your criminal defense.

In a recent Arizona Court of Appeals drug case, the court considered a defendant’s conviction for narcotic drug trafficking charges. The defendant was sentenced to a presumptive five-year term of imprisonment and appealed the conviction.

The defense argued that (1) the drugs found in his car should have been suppressed, (2) improper profile testimony was admitted, and (3) the sanction imposed for a Batson violation wasn’t adequate.

Drug trafficking charges are multi-facet in nature, and challenges can take place on numerous fronts. In this article three types of challenges will be discussed:

• Batson Challenge (trial procedure defense);
• Search was not within scope of consent (constitutional challenge)
• Contesting of expert testimony on drug-courier profiling (evidentiary challenge)

Case Summary

The case arose when the defendant’s car was stopped for a traffic violation. At the time of the stop, the defendant consented to a search of his vehicle.

During the search police found 60 grams of cocaine in the rear cargo area of the car. Consequently, the defendant was indicted for charges of narcotics possession and transportation for sale.

The defense moved to suppress the drug evidence on the basis that the stop, search, and seizure violated his 4^th amendment rights. He also asked that the detective be excluded from testifying as an expert witness for the prosecution.

The court admitted testimony of the detective as expert, but did not allow the officers’ observations of the baseball cap or tattoo displayed on the suspect’s arm.

The defense raised a Batson challenge during jury selection, contending that the potential Hispanic jurors were unjustly removed from the initial pool of jurors summoned from the community.

The trial court reinstated three of those potential jurors previously struck, after finding that the prosecution failed to give adequate race-neutral reasons for the strikes.

Two of those brought back were impaneled as the final jurors that found the defendant guilty of narcotics trafficking.

The state dismissed the possession charge. But sentenced the defendant to 5 years in prison for the transportation of narcotics conviction.

On appeal, the defendant argued that the drugs seized in the warrantless search of his car should have been suppressed.

The officer had stopped the defendant initially because he didn’t use his turn signal to switch lanes, causing the driver next to him to suddenly apply his brakes.

After the driver was pulled over, the officer requested him to provide routine documents including license, auto registration, and insurance. The officer then asked the defendant to get out and wait for him next to his squad car while police completed the records check. The defendant agreed and was cooperative throughout the stop.

The officer then proceeded to conduct a routine vehicle identification number (VIN) check. As the officer moved closer to the defendant’s vehicle to see the VIN, he noticed items in the the defendant’s car that police believed were commonly associated with those of a illegal drug couriers. Those items included a baseball cap, and particular tattoo displayed on the defendant’s arm.

The officer asked the defendant if there were illegal drugs in his vehicle. The defendant denied, but agreed to a vehicle search for which he consented verbally and in writing. Shortly after the search began officers found cocaine in the spare tire’s storage area.

The defendant argued that it was unlawful for the deputy to stop him in the first place and to extend the stop to check his federal VIN stickers.

He also argued the search extended beyond the scope of his consent. The court disagreed and determined that the officer acted appropriately within the consent. The court noted that the consent included authorization for officers to search of all spaces within the vehicle.

The Appeals Court agreed with the trial court. It held that an officer asking about matters unrelated to the traffic stop doesn’t turn the encounter into something other than a lawful search and seizure.

The court held that even if the deputy had kept the suspect longer than he should have, the conversation that took place between the defendant and officers appeared to be consensual. The court noted that police are required to dismiss a driver at the point in which the time expires which is needed to satisfy the original purpose of the stop. The exception to this is if the encounter develops into one that is consensual. In that event the police are not required to dismiss the suspect at that point.

Next, the court noted that in the United States Supreme Court case of Batson v. Kentucky, the use of peremptory strikes to exclude possible jurors based on their race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. When this is claimed, the person challenging the strikes must show there was discrimination on the face of things. The striking party must then give a race-neutral reason it struck a juror. The trial court then decides whether the party challenging the strike showed purposeful racial discrimination. The appellate court noted that the matter was one of first impression in Arizona, and the strikes were not justified.

The court looked at different approaches used in other states to remedy the situation. It held that if a Batson objection is sustained, the trial court has the discretion to restore the jurors who were improperly challenged, or grant a mistrial. It also found other remedies were possible, as determined by the scope and character of the violation. It determined that the trial court had acted appropriately in reinstating the jurors who weren’t properly struck.

The defendant also claimed the trial court had erroneously admitted improper expert testimony. The defense argued that the state’s expert testimony what was basically profile evidence related to how drug transactions happen. The state responded that the testimony at issue didn’t count as profile evidence, and even if it was, the error was harmless. The appellate court explained that general expert testimony about how drug traffickers operate is usually upheld. However, it isn’t appropriate for the testimony to compare a particular organization’s conduct to the defendant’s conduct in a specific case.

In this case, the appellate court found that as long as there was a proper foundation, the police officer could provide an opinion about whether the specific defendant had the drugs for personal use or sale. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Updated July 12, 2018

On July 11, 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence.

The court reasoned that the trial court is in the best position to review the circumstances and validity of Batson claims, and thus, decide on the most appropriate remedy.

The Arizona Supreme Court noted that the judge restored unfairly excluded jurors, and forfeited the three discriminatory challenges that the prosecution attempted to use.

The Court determined that the trial court’s decision was proper, and it did not abuse it’s discretion by applying these remedies.

The AZ Supreme court reviewed the arguments for additional remedies that could have applied. However, the Court noted that the defendant did not reserve the right to seek other alternatives besides a retrial.

When Can Police Lawfully Search Your Vehicle?

If police have reasonable suspicion that you have violated the law, they can pull you over for a traffic stop. Without it, the stop is unlawful.

The exception to this is an official safety checkpoint stop. At a checkpoint, police must stop vehicles according to an advanced directive such as every 2nd or 3rd vehicle, or other mathematical pattern.

For routine stops, police can lawfully ask for identification, driver’s license, vehicle registration, insurance documents, and if there is a firearm in the vehicle.

Police can also conduct a background and Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) check. Though you are not required to answer questions asked by police regarding your involvement in a suspected crime, they can still ask.

Without a probable cause, a warrant, or your consent, police cannot lawfully conduct of search of your vehicle or belongings. However, their observations during the routine stop can be used to determine if probable cause exists based on totality of the circumstances.

If the evidence resulted from an unlawful search and seizure, your criminal defense attorney can file a motion to suppress it with the court so that it cannot be admitted for prosecution.

What is Drug Courier Profiling and When is it Admissible?

Drug courier profiling is a practice used by drug enforcement agencies and police to help them identify certain behaviors and characteristics displayed by an individual that is commonly associated with drug trafficking.

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that drug courier profiling evidence cannot be used as a basis to reach a verdict of guilty v. non-guilty verdict.

In deciding questions of reasonable suspicion or probable cause, the U.S. Supreme Court has rejected expert testimony for drug courier profiling. Instead, it determined that the basis for consideration should be on “totality of circumstances” (United States v. Sokolow).

This does not preclude police and drug enforcement officials from continuing to engage in the practice as part of meeting the totality of the circumstances standard.

Penalties for Narcotics Transportation Charges

In Arizona, narcotics transportation for sale charges are brought as Class 2 Felonies which carry severe penalties.

A first time non-dangerous narcotics trafficking conviction calls for minimum sentencing of 4 years and maximum sentencing of 10 years in prison. If mitigated factors exist a person can qualify for a mitigated sentencing of 3 years.

But if the amount of the narcotics involved in the conviction is more than or equal to the State’s Threshold Amount under A.R.S. 13-3419, the defendant will not be eligible for mitigated sentencing. If the offense involved an aggravated factor such as use of a deadly weapon, it will result in aggravated sentencing of 12.5 years. The maximum fine for an individual is $150,000 per person for each charge and up to $1,000,000 for businesses.

Criminal Defense Attorney for Drug Transportation Charges Mesa AZ

One thing to keep in mind is that an arrest is not a conviction. You have the right to defend your charges and hire a private criminal defense attorney to represent you.

James Novak is an experienced drug transportation defense attorney. If retained, James Novak, will evaluate your case to determine the most effective defenses that apply and may lead to the best outcome in your case. He will base defense strategies and challenges on the evidence and circumstances surrounding the charges.

In this case, the court agreed with one of the challenges. So while in it did not agree with all of them in this case, such defenses are often successful. If the evidence was obtained in violation of your rights, the court will exclude it from being used against you. In that event, it usually results in a dismissal of charges.

If a dismissal the drug transportation charges is not possible, other options will be explored to determine what will result in the most favorable resolution of your charges. Examples of favorable resolutions can be obtained through deferred prosecution, plea bargains, reduction in charges or sentencing, avoidance of jail or prison, waiver or reduction of fines.

If you face drug charges in Tempe, Chandler, Gilbert, Scottsdale, Phoenix, or Mesa, consult drug crime attorney James Novak, of the Law Office of James Novak PLLC. James Novak is a former Maricopa County Prosecutor, who practices exclusively in criminal defense. If retained, he will work hard to defend your charges, protect your rights, and personally handle your criminal matter. The state and prosecution do not have to tell the court that your rights were violated when the police stopped you or that the evidence was obtained unlawfully. Mr. Novak offers a free initial consultation for people facing active criminal charges in his service areas.

If you have been charged with a crime, contact the Law Office of James Novak though the website. You can reach Attorney James Novak directly by calling (480) 413-1499 regarding your criminal matter.

Additional Resources:

• A.R.S. § 13-3407 (possession or transportation of dangerous drugs)
• A.R.S. § 13-3408 (narcotics transportation for sale)
• A.R.S. § 28 – 815 A
• Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office | Jail Information for Families
• Maricopa County Superior Court – Drug Court Program
• Criminal Sentencing Guidelines 2017 – 2018
• High Intensity Drug Trafficking Task Force – Maricopa County
• United States Drug Enforcement Agency – Phoenix AZ Division
• Police Report and Records Search – City of Mesa AZ

Other Articles of Interest from our Award Winning Blog:

• Duress Defense For Marijuana Smuggling Charges
• Entrapment Defense for Narcotics Sales Charges
• Three Things You Need to Know about Plea Deals and Deferred Prosecution

Last year Maricopa County Superior Court reported that of 99.8 percent of terminated criminal cases, only 2.2 percent went to trial.

The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) reported similar statistics in 2016. The USSC reported 97.3 percent of criminal cases were resolved without trial, while only 2.7 percent went to trial.

A majority of defendants opt for plea deals or deferred prosecution when made available to them, to avoid the uncertainties of trial verdicts, and harsh sentencing.

Prosecutors are encouraged to pursue plea agreements in criminal cases, and offer diversion programs when possible, to reduce court caseloads and to preserve the resources needed to conduct trials.

Defendants must also consider whether or not their statements made for purposes of plea negotiations or deferred sentencing, may be used against them if the charges are later prosecuted.

Recently, the Arizona Supreme Court reviewed a case in which the defendant opted to participate in deferred prosecution, but did not complete it. The Court considered the question of whether statements made by a defendant in connection with his deferred prosecution agreement were admissible.

Arizona Supreme Court Opinion

The case arose when a security guard found the defendant with marijuana in a restroom. The defendant was charged with a class 6 felony for possession or use of marijuana and participated in plea discussions.

The defendant rejected a plea agreement during a comprehensive pretrial conference. Shortly thereafter, his charge was reduced to a class 1 misdemeanor.

The defendant was extended an offer to participation in a drug treatment program, for which he agreed in exchange for deferred prosecution.

After accepting the deferred prosecution agreement, the defendant met with a representative of the diversion program to register. During the meeting which he attended with his attorney, the defendant completed a form that stated he understood his Miranda rights.

On the program’s statement of facts form, the defendant signed an agreement indicating that he understood that his statements could be used against him if he failed to complete the diversion program.

He admitted on the form that the marijuana was found in his possession on the floor.

A few months later, the State resumed the prosecution because the defendant didn’t attend seminars as required. He had also tested positive for marijuana and alcohol, in violation of the program terms.

The defense moved to suppress statements he’d given on the program registration form arguing that since the statements were made as part of plea discussions, they should be protected by Rule 410. The trial court denied the motion.

The defendant was found guilty after a bench trial. He was sentenced to a year of probation with a suspended sentenced.

He appealed the conviction. The court rejected the argument on appeal that his statements were inadmissible. The appeals court held that the defendant did not make admissions to a prosecutor during plea discussions and he had waived protection of Rule 410.

The appellate court held that Rule 410 didn’t apply because (1) discussions about deferred prosecutions weren’t plea discussions; and (2) those statements were given after he had rejected a plea offer.

The Court noted that the defendant had gone to the settlement conference where he’d gotten deferred prosecution with his father, his attorney, a prosecutor, and court commissioner present. No other options besides deferred prosecution were brought up at the hearing.

The defendant’s father had been corrected by the commissioner and prosecutor when he mistakenly said the son would have to plead guilty to participate in the program. The court explained that in deferred prosecution, a guilty plea is not entered. The defendant talked to his father before completing the registration paperwork, which included the form in which he admitted he possessed marijuana.

The Court took note that at no point was the defendant offered a plea deal. It explained that in a plea discussion the prosecution negotiates with the defendant about pleading guilty or no contest in exchange for a concession. In contrast, in a deferred prosecution discussion, they negotiate about whether the defendant will join a special program that results in a deferment or diversion before the guilty plea or a trial. When a defendant completes this program, his charges will be dismissed entirely. In contrast, a guilty plea never results in a dismissal since the defendant formally admits he committed a crime.

The Court held that Rule 410 and Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 17.4(f) didn’t apply to discussions about deferred prosecutions. It clarified that the appellate court was incorrect in holding Rule 410 didn’t apply only because he’d rejected a plea deal.

The Court also stated that the representative of the diversion program wasn’t an agent of the prosecutor for purposes of negotiating a plea. The defendant argued the representative was a state agent because the county attorney’s office name appeared on the forms. The Court rejected the idea that this made the diversion program representative a prosecutor’s agent for purposes of plea discussions, noting again he didn’t negotiate a plea.

Finally, the defendant argued his waiver agreement didn’t specify Rule 410. The Court explained a knowing waiver of Rule 410 only required that the defendant know the nature of the rights being abandoned and the consequences. He was specifically told by the prosecutor that if he failed the diversion program, the paperwork for the program could be used against him for trial. He was also told he could go to trial instead of making an admission. The drug conviction was affirmed.

3 Things You Should Know About Deferred Prosecution, Plea Deals & Legal Representation

Below is an overview of their framework, and the importance legal representation in these agreements:

I. Deferred Prosecution – 1) You do not plead guilty. Instead, you agree to participate in a special program when and if, made available to you by the court as an alternative to prosecution of particular types of criminal charges. 2) After successful completion of the program your charges will be dismissed. If you fail to complete the program the state will continue to prosecute the charges. 3) Any statements made in pre-trial discussions or written statements prerequisite to the program can be used against you.

II. Plea Agreement – 1) You must plead guilty.In a plea arrangement you are required to enter a guilty plea in exchange for a leniency in sentencing. 2) After an agreement is reached, the presiding judge will either approve or reject the plea agreement at their discretion. If the parties cannot reach an agreement the case will go to trial. 3) Statements that might otherwise be incriminating that were made to further plea discussions cannot be used against you, if you later decide not to accept the plea agreement.

III. Legal Advocacy – 1) Whether your matter involves a plea agreement or deferred prosecution, you should obtain legal representation as soon as possible. 2) In the least you should consult an attorney before your first court appearance which is usually the arraignment. If the prosecution extends an offer and you do not have an attorney, they often are unwilling to offer more favorable terms if you decide later to hire one. 3) Deferred prosecution is an offer made by the prosecution. However, defendants are sometimes surprised to learn that they do not qualify for the program, or that the court does not offer deferred prosecution for their charges. An experienced criminal defense attorney can help you to explore your options, make sure your rights are protected, and work to help qualify you for the program if it is available. If a plea agreement is involved, your criminal defense attorney will make sure that the plea terms are fair, constitutional, and the most favorable that can be obtained based on the circumstances of your charges.

Criminal Defense Attorney for Deferred Prosecution, Plea Agreement and Trial Mesa AZ

Possession of marijuana outside of the provisions of the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act is still illegal in this state. Those found guilty of marijuana possession, will be exposed to harsh felony sentencing.

The state imposes prison sentencing of ranges from 6 months to 1.5 years for possession of less than 2 pounds for personal use, felony records, fines, fees, assessments, participation in a substance abuse program, and any other penalties the court deems necessary.

For these reasons it is important to consult and retain an experienced criminal defense attorney to represent you in your charges. You will need an attorney with strong litigation and negotiation skills, and one who is familiar with the courts and rules of procedure in the jurisdiction where you were arrested.

James Novak, criminal defense attorney, is a former prosecutor in Maricopa County, with over 20 years of experience in handling criminal cases. He provides a free consultation for clients who face active charges in Mesa, Tempe, Phoenix, Chandler, Gilbert, and Scottsdale Arizona.

If retained, James Novak of the Law Office of James Novak will evaluate your case, the evidence, and all circumstances surrounding the incident. He will work with you closely to determine the best defense strategy and work to maximum your freedom and work vigorously to obtain the most favorable resolution for your charges.

Contact or call Attorney, James Novak at (480) 413-1499 for your free initial consultation. He will speak with you directly and in strict confidence to discuss your criminal matter, and defense options.

Additional Resources:

• TASC Solutions Mesa AZ
• Arizona TASC Program | Deferred Prosecution
• Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
• Miranda Rights | Miranda v. Arizona
• Arizona Criminal Sentencing Chart 2016/2017
• Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 410 (a) (4) | Plea Discussions
• Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 17.4 (a) | Plea Negotiations and Agreements
• Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure 38.3 | Dismissal of Prosecution
• R.S. 13 – 4423 | Plea Discussions
• Statewide Superior Court Trial Statistics
• Arizona Court Annual Statistics
• A. R.S. 13 – 3405 | Arizona Marijuana Possession Laws
• A. R.S. 11 – 361 | Special Supervised Diversion Program
• Arizona Department of Corrections | Counseling and Treatment Services
• United States Sentencing Commission | Sentencing Statistics

Other Articles of Interest from our Award Winning Blog:

• How to Protect Your Rights under the Unconscious Clause
• Three Things You Need to Know about Your Miranda Rights
• Your Right to Request Change of Judge in Arizona Criminal Court
• What You Need to Know about the Medical Blood Draw Exception
• How to Protect Your Rights and Avoid Self-Incrimination