State v. Marrero, 111219 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2019-0152-PR

Docket Nº:2 CA-CR 2019-0152-PR
Opinion Judge:STARING, PRESIDING JUDGE
Party Name:The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Mark Angel Marrero Jr., Petitioner.
Attorney:Law Office of Jacob Amaru, Tucson By Jacob Amaru Counsel for Petitioner
Judge Panel:Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
Case Date:November 12, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Arizona
 
FREE EXCERPT

The State of Arizona, Respondent,

v.

Mark Angel Marrero Jr., Petitioner.

No. 2 CA-CR 2019-0152-PR

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Second Division

November 12, 2019

Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20141507001 The Honorable Kenneth Lee, Judge

Law Office of Jacob Amaru, Tucson By Jacob Amaru Counsel for Petitioner

Presiding Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

STARING, PRESIDING JUDGE

¶1 Mark Marrero Jr. seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that order unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Marrero has not shown such abuse here.

¶2 After a jury trial, Marrero was convicted of sixteen counts of kidnapping, six counts each of aggravated and armed robbery, eight counts of aggravated assault, seven counts of aggravated assault of a minor under fifteen, two counts of burglary, and two counts of impersonating a police officer. The charges stemmed from his participation in two home invasions. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling 269.5 years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Marrero, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0199 (Ariz. App. April 19, 2017) (mem. decision).

¶3 Marrero sought post-conviction relief, arguing his first appointed counsel was ineffective for inadequately investigating the legality of the window tinting on his vehicle that had formed the basis of the traffic stop leading to his arrest and for advising him to engage in a "free talk." He claimed his second appointed counsel had failed to adequately advise him with regard to a plea offer by the state, investigate the legality of the window tint, and prepare for and conduct trial. Last, Marrero asserted Carpenter v. United States, U.S., 138 S.Ct. 2206 (2018), is a significant change in the law applicable to his case. The...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP