Wednesday, August 24, 2016


At my firm, we handle all kinds of criminal cases including violations of probation and cases where the defendant has multiple prior felony convictions.  I am always looking out for an opportunity to let you folks know about little nuances in the law especially when it comes to prior felons.  Keep in mind that whenever someone with a prior felony record goes to trial, the State always will try and introduce the defendant's prior history.  A court is allowed to admit a Arizona Department of Corrections "pen pack" as a self authenticating certified copy of a public record pursuant to Rule 902(8) of the Arizona Rules of Evidence during the trial to allow the state to prove a defendant had historical prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement purposes. What the State has to do however is make sure the pen pak has a photograph of the defendant, a fingerprint card and an in state exemplification, or "jurat" .  This is because the signer must be placed under oath swearing or affirming that the contents of the documents are true and correct, rather than merely acknowledging by notarization the authencity of the signature. #randalljcraig #scottsdalecriminallawyer #scottsdalecriminalattorney #scottsdalelawyers #scottsdalecriminallaw #phoenixcriminallawyer #phoenixcrimininalattorney #phoenixlawyers #phoenixtriallawyers

Wednesday, August 17, 2016


In Arizona we have some of the toughest DUI laws in the country.  Suppressing the state's evidence is sometimes the only way to win these cases because the odds are routinely stacked against the defendant.  Recently, the Court of Appeals ruled that a trial court erred in denying  a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop.  In essence, the police had noticed the light that illuminated the defendant's license plate emitted a white light actually visible from the rear of the car (rather than merely illuminating the license plate). The Court reasoned such additional visible illumination of a rear license plate does not violate applicable Arizona law under ARS Section 28-931 or 28 925, and a mistake of law in this regard by law enforcement is not objectively reasonable, and  the stop was not based upon reasonable suspicision. State v. Stoll, 2 CA-CR 2015-0280, 5/23/16. #scottsdaleDUI #Scottsdale misdemeanor #scottsdalecriminallawyer #scottsdalecriminalattorney #phoenixcriminallawyer #phoenixcriminalattorney

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

For All You Out There On Probation

At my firm we handle all kinds of cases including probation matters.  This can easily be one of the most distressing types of criminal matters because the consequences can be so severe to the client.  Think about it.  Somebody makes a mistake in life by committing a crime. The consequence is they get placed on probation.  The probationer is truly remorseful for the crime they committed and sets out to make amends by paying off all restitution and doing exactly what he or she is supposed to do under probation.  Then for some reason the probation officer decides to file a Motion To Revoke Probation. Perhaps the probationer lost his job and could no longer afford to make the restitution payments.   If the Petition To Revoke is granted,  the probationer may go to prison or be reinstated with additional terms. If he is reinstated,this kind of merry go round can continue for years with him constantly be reinstated for additional years, if the State believes constant monitoring is needed.  The Court of Appeals recently decided that a trial court does not err under the Arizona Revised Statutes Sections 13-901 and 902 by revoking a defendant's probation that was previously extended for an additional five years pursuant to Section 13-902(c) for failing to fully pay restitution when he violates other condtions of probation such as drug/alcohol testing because the specific language of the statute authorizes the Court to extend the "period" of probation when a defendant has failed to make restitution and the provision limits the length of any such extension to a five year period.  State v. Turner, 1CA-CR 15-0477, 5/3/16. If you have been accused of a crime call The Law Offices of Randall J. Craig,PLLC at 480 767-0400. You may reach us via the web at or #probation #scottsdalecriminaldefense #scottsdaleattorney #scottsdaledui #phoenixfelonycriminaldefense #randalljcraig #criminal #domesticviolence #aggravatedassault

Monday, August 15, 2016


At the Law Offices of Randall J. Craig, PLLC we handle all kinds of criminal cases including DUI type of offenses. The State of Arizona has some of the toughest DUI laws in the country.  Recently in an aggravated DUI case the defendant was charged with DUI driving related charges. He neglected to have an interlock device installed even though he had been ordered to have it installed on any motor vehicle he was going to be operating for 12 months after or from the date that his driving privilege was reinstated. Here the  new conviction related to the failure to have an interlock device at the time of  the incurring separate/new DUI charges had to be vacated because by its own terms the subject interlock device  order was not yet effective because the defendant's license had not been reinstated. State v. James, 1 CA-CR 15-0002, 4/21/16 #DUIscottsdale #scottsdaleDUI #Scottsdalecriminallawyer #scottsdalefelonylawyer

Friday, August 12, 2016

New website for general phoenix area

Please visit our phoenix website at
#phoenixcriminallawyer #phoenixfelonylawyer #phoenixcriminaldefense


Last month we were running articles about the Miranda v. Arizona decision and how such a landmark case has impacted the criminal justice system.  I have been writing about how the system has developed  ways to circumvent the rights afforded by this case. This got me thinking about other kinds of rights afforded to defendants. I have always maintained that a client should never just plead guilty and I say the same thing about giving the police consent.  You should never just consent to a search without the advice of counsel.   Lately, the Arizona Supreme Court in April ruled soundly in State v. Valenzuela, CR-15-0222-PR, 4/26/16 that a driver of an automobile arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) may not voluntarily consent to give samples of his/her blood after an arresting officer advises him/her that "Arizona law requires you to submit" to breath, blood or other bodily substance tests chosen by law enforcement because a showing only that the consent given was in response to such an admonition fails to prove that such an arrestee's consent was freely and voluntarily given as required by the United States Supreme Court's decision in Bumper v. North Carolina.  However, the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement may allow admission of such blood testing evidence.  If you have been charged with any criminal offense, call The Law Offices of Randall J. Craig at (480) 767-0400. You may also reach us on the web at, or  #scottsdalecriminallawyers #scottsdalecriminallaw #scottsdalelawyers #phoenixlawyers #phoenixcriminallawyers #phoenixcriminallaw


At The Law Offices of Randall J. Craig PLLC we handle all kinds of felony offenses and can tell you that in the State of Arizona we have some of the toughest criminal laws in the country.  For instance, child prostitution.  We all have strong feelings against this kind of offense but the laws here do seem to be extremely harsh.  ARS Section 13-3212 (child prostitution statute) providing enhanced and consecutive sentences for anyone convicted of engaging in child prostitution knowing that the person is a minor aged 15,16 or 17 applies to those cases in which the "minor" is an undercover peace officer.  The language of 13-3212(c) provides "it is not a defense to a prosecution" under subsection (B)(2) "that the other person is a peace officer posing as a minor or a person assisting a peace officer posing as a minor."  Ok we all get the intent behind the statute.  Here is the problem.  Can a person legally violate this statute even if they wanted to if the undercover police officer is 21 years of age but happens to look 17.  Criminal defense lawyers like myself know the argument the state always makes, i.e., "we look at the intent of the statute and such is to deter people like Mr. Defendant from abusing minors, etc.  Ok worthy argument but what about impossibility?  If defendant A is in a hotel room with officer B who happens to be 22 years of age, how can defendant A legally and possibly violate any child prostitution law if the officer is an adult?  Regardless of defendant's intent, it is impossible to engage in child prostitution in this scenario.  This gets back to the old law school scenario of if I yell in the middle of the forest whose peace am I disturbing?  If you have been convicted of any criminal offense, call The Law Offices of Randall J. Craig, PLLC at 480 767-0400. You may also reach us via the web at   or at     #scottsdalecriminallawyer #scottsdalecriminaldefense #scottsdalelawyer