Randall M. Howe

In McCallum v. Costello, divorced parents Michael McCallum and Erin Costello disputed modifications to legal decision-making, parenting time, and child support for their 12-year-old son. Mother petitioned for sole decision-making authority, permission to relocate the child to California, and supervised parenting time for Father, citing a prior domestic violence finding against Father and concerns about his alcohol use. The superior court denied the petition after trial, maintaining the 2016 joint legal decision-making and equal unsupervised parenting time arrangement, rejecting relocation, and denying a child support change. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the domestic violence presumption did not apply because the alleged incident involved Father’s ex-girlfriend rather than Mother, the alcohol presumption was inapplicable due to the timing of Father’s DUI, and the evidence—including the court-appointed advisor’s report and the child’s expressed wishes—showed no substantial change in circumstances warranting modification and supported the child’s best interests in the existing schedule.

family law

In this Arizona case, a mother appealed the juvenile court's order terminating her parental rights to her young daughter after the father petitioned on grounds of abandonment and neglect. The mother had made repeated unsubstantiated abuse allegations against the father, leading to the revocation of her parenting time; she then made no effort to arrange supervised visits or contact the child for 19 months. The juvenile court terminated her rights on abandonment grounds (but not neglect), finding termination served the child's best interests by enabling adoption by the stepmother and providing stability, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals court held that the prolonged lack of contact met the statutory definition of abandonment under A.R.S. § 8-531(1) as prima facie evidence, measured by conduct rather than intent, and that adoption would affirmatively benefit the child while continued contact would cause emotional harm.

family law

In Kaiser v. Gamarano, unmarried parents Amanda Kaiser and Dominic Gamarano disputed legal decision-making authority for their two children after informal shared parenting ended in conflict, with both initially seeking joint authority and equal parenting time but disagreeing on education (Mother favored continuing Catholic school; Father sought a non-religious alternative due to cost and alleged issues like bullying). The family court granted joint legal decision-making overall but awarded Mother final authority on education decisions, ordered the children to stay in their current school for the rest of the year (with Mother bearing full tuition), and sanctioned Father with partial attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 25-415 for knowingly presenting a false sexual abuse allegation against Mother’s new husband, which investigations by police, DCS, and a court-appointed advisor found unsubstantiated. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the family court made required findings on all relevant best-interests factors under A.R.S. § 25-403, that the record supported its conclusions without abuse of discretion, and that the ruling did not violate Father’s rights since he retained joint authority and could address religion during his parenting time.

family lawreligious liberty

In State v. Freestone, Collin Freestone was convicted after a jury trial of aggravated driving under the influence, a class 4 felony, based on evidence that an officer stopped him for drifting into a bike lane, he admitted recent marijuana use and a revoked license, and a smoldering joint was found in his car; he had also failed to appear for trial. On appeal, Freestone argued that the trial court erred by striking a prospective juror for cause over his objection and by allowing the State to introduce evidence that he had requested an attorney, which cut short the DUI investigation. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the trial court acted within its discretion in excusing the juror, who had expressed a bias favoring the defense and equivocated about her ability to be impartial and follow instructions. The court further held that defense counsel opened the door during cross-examination by highlighting the brevity of the investigation and lack of field sobriety tests, making the officer’s limited redirect testimony about the attorney request admissible as responsive clarification rather than improper comment on invocation of rights.

criminal lawprocedure

In this family law dispute, parents Jake Treptow and Tabitha Vitellaro-Martorell, who share two young children under joint legal decision-making and a divided parenting-time schedule, filed cross-petitions alleging mutual violations of court orders on communication via Our Family Wizard, medical decisions, make-up parenting time, and other issues. The family court held an evidentiary hearing and found Mother in contempt for obstructing make-up time, exceeding message guidelines, and excluding Father from medical decisions, while finding Father in contempt for similar medical and babysitter-related violations; it awarded Father attorney’s fees under A.R.S. § 25-414(C), reduced for his own conduct, but did not address Mother’s claim that Father failed to respond timely to messages. On appeal, the Arizona Court of Appeals accepted special-action jurisdiction and affirmed the contempt findings on medical decisions, make-up time, and Mother’s communication violations, but remanded because the family court had not ruled on Father’s alleged violations of the response guidelines despite Mother properly raising the issue. The court also vacated the fee award for reevaluation on remand after the additional claim is addressed.

family law

Abdulahad Al Jajo, a security guard injured in 2021 when he fractured his hip at work for Arrowhead Security Inc. (VetSec), challenged an Industrial Commission of Arizona determination that he had only a modest loss of earning capacity after his claim was closed with a 22% permanent impairment of the left lower extremity. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision finding that Al Jajo had no loss of earning capacity and was therefore not entitled to additional disability benefits. The court reasoned that orthopedic surgeon Dr. David Ott’s independent medical examinations established Al Jajo could return to sedentary or light-duty security work with specific restrictions, that VetSec offered to rehire him at the same or higher pay while accommodating those limits, and that two labor-market consultants confirmed this would eliminate any earning-capacity loss. Al Jajo presented no contradicting medical evidence, and the ALJ reasonably found his testimony about being unable to work more than three hours per week insufficient to meet his burden of proving he could not return to his prior job.

labor & employment

In State v. Nguyen, Binh Phuong Nguyen appealed his perjury conviction after testifying at his co-defendant’s trial in a manner that contradicted his earlier statements to police about their joint drug activities. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence, finding the evidence sufficient for a jury to conclude that Nguyen knowingly made a false sworn statement on a material issue. The record included body-camera footage and interview videos in which Nguyen told officers that his co-defendant knew about the pills and helped arrange the transport, his later sworn testimony claiming the pills were added without her knowledge, and text messages between them discussing drug quantities and sales. The court held that the co-defendant’s knowledge of the drugs was material because it bore directly on the charges the State was pursuing against her.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned A.G., a person with a history of serious mental illness, who appealed a Maricopa County Superior Court order for involuntary mental health treatment after social workers observed him responding to internal stimuli and behaving aggressively while in jail awaiting release. The central dispute was whether two licensed social workers from the jail could testify as statutory “acquaintance witnesses” at the treatment hearing, given that their contact with A.G. occurred during formal safety assessments rather than informal daily interactions. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the treatment order. It held that A.R.S. § 36-539(B) requires only that acquaintance witnesses possess relevant personal knowledge of the patient’s mental condition at the time of the alleged disorder, and nothing in the statute or prior case law demands that the knowledge come from non-evaluative or day-to-day contact. The social workers’ observations during their meetings satisfied that standard.

healthcarecivil rightsprocedure

Dominique Brown, after waiving counsel and representing himself, pleaded guilty to armed robbery in a felony murder and robbery case and was sentenced to 13.5 years with 731 days of presentence credit. He petitioned for post-conviction relief, claiming denial of his right to representation, newly discovered evidence, actual innocence, and an incorrect credit calculation; the superior court dismissed the petition. The Arizona Court of Appeals granted review and partial relief, affirming the dismissal of the first three claims because Brown failed to meet the required burdens of proof under Rule 33 for showing prejudice, new facts, or that no reasonable fact-finder would have convicted him. On the credit claim, the court held that the miscalculation was fundamental error that could be raised later, found Brown was in custody from February 19, 2021, until sentencing on November 6, 2024, and ordered the credit increased to 1,356 days.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, Douglas Max Boldt sought review of the Yavapai County Superior Court’s summary dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction relief following his earlier criminal conviction. The Arizona Court of Appeals granted review of the petition but denied relief. The court applied an abuse-of-discretion standard, noting that the petitioner bears the burden of showing that the lower court erred in law or fact. After examining the record and the superior court’s order, the appeals court concluded that Boldt had not established any such abuse of discretion, and therefore upheld the dismissal.

criminal lawprocedure

In this divorce case, Richard Swenson appealed the superior court’s decree dissolving his marriage to Nickie Swenson, challenging the division of community assets including a 2019 Fuzion fifth wheel, a GMC Sierra Denali, and shareholder distributions plus business income from their jointly owned plumbing company. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the decree in part but vacated and remanded in part, directing the superior court to reconsider the three disputed property issues and any resulting changes to the equalization payment. The court reasoned that the decree contained inconsistent awards for the fifth wheel, lacked a clear finding on whether the GMC was a business or personal asset, and awarded Wife the full amount of distributions and misused business funds ($137,582.24) without stating a sound reason for what appeared to be an unequal division under A.R.S. § 25-318(A). Because Wife filed no answering brief and the record did not clearly resolve the issues, the appellate court treated them as debatable and remanded for further equitable-distribution analysis.

family lawpropertyprocedure

In State v. Driffin, the defendant appealed his conviction for transporting methamphetamine for sale, arguing that a state trooper lacked reasonable suspicion for an initial traffic stop near the Arizona-Nevada border and for extending the stop to conduct a K-9 sniff, and that the trial court improperly allowed expert testimony on drug-trafficking practices. The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court held that the stop and extension were supported by reasonable suspicion based on the totality of circumstances, including inconsistent statements from Driffin and his girlfriend about the rental car and their travel plans, the girlfriend’s nervousness, the use of a rental vehicle, and the stop’s location near the state line; it further held that the expert testimony was admissible as general modus operandi evidence explaining drug-trafficking organizations’ practices, rather than improper drug-courier profile evidence, because the testimony remained separate from case-specific facts and the State’s closing arguments drew only reasonable inferences from it.

criminal lawprocedure

In Aguayo v. Aguayo, the Arizona Court of Appeals reviewed a superior court ruling dismissing a father's 2024 petition to modify the $3,500 monthly child support obligation set in the parties' 2022 divorce decree. The father claimed changed circumstances based on unemployment since 2023 and insurance coverage for the children, issues that had been raised and litigated after a hearing on his 2023 modification petition. The court affirmed the dismissal without a new hearing, holding that the claimed changes were not substantial and continuing under A.R.S. § 25-327(A) because the father's return to his prior interpreter position came with a higher salary than before, and it upheld the award of attorney's fees to the mother as within the superior court's discretion.

family law

The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of Johnathon W.’s parental rights to his children H.H. and R.H. The case arose after the children, born in 2022, tested positive for substances at birth, leading the Department of Child Safety to take custody, allege neglect, and obtain a dependency finding; over the following period DCS offered services including substance-abuse treatment, drug testing, counseling, parenting classes, and visitation, but Father participated only sporadically, continued using marijuana and methamphetamine, missed appointments, and did not attend most of R.H.’s medical visits for cerebral palsy. The superior court found statutory grounds for severance under A.R.S. § 8-533(B)(8), determined that DCS had made diligent reunification efforts, and concluded termination served the children’s best interests because they had bonded with an adoptive foster placement after more than two years and would face risks of harm if returned. The appeals court upheld these findings, noting that Father had not requested a guardianship and that the evidence, including psychological testimony about his antisocial traits and substance disorders, supported both the grounds and best-interests determinations.

family law

In State v. Beatte, Jay Dee Beatte Jr. petitioned the Arizona Court of Appeals for review after the superior court dismissed most of his claims in a post-conviction relief proceeding following his 2019 conviction (after retrial) for child molestation. Beatte argued that his appellate counsel was ineffective for filing an Anders brief without raising issues such as the admission of other-acts evidence and the lack of a clear-and-convincing-evidence jury instruction, and that his sentence as a repetitive offender was illegal. The court granted review but denied relief, holding that Beatte failed to show prejudice from the Anders brief because the appellate court’s own record review provided equivalent or greater scrutiny, and that the sentencing claim was precluded because it had already been considered and rejected on direct appeal. The decision affirmed the superior court’s dismissal of the petition.

criminal lawprocedure