State v. Martinez, 060220 AZAPP2, 2 CA-CR 2019-0233-PR
|Docket Nº:||2 CA-CR 2019-0233-PR|
|Opinion Judge:||EPPICH, Presiding Judge:|
|Party Name:||The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Manuel Martinez, Petitioner.|
|Attorney:||Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Geraldine L. Roll, Deputy County Attorney, Florence Counsel for Respondent Manuel Martinez, Buckeye In Propria Persona|
|Judge Panel:||Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.|
|Case Date:||June 02, 2020|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Arizona|
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR201201533 The Honorable Kevin D. White, Judge
Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Geraldine L. Roll, Deputy County Attorney, Florence Counsel for Respondent
Manuel Martinez, Buckeye In Propria Persona
Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Judge Espinosa and Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
EPPICH, Presiding Judge:
¶1 Petitioner Manuel Martinez seeks review of the trial court's ruling dismissing his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P.1 We will not disturb that ruling unless the court has abused its discretion. See State v. Martinez, 226 Ariz. 464, ¶ 6 (App. 2011). Martinez has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Martinez was convicted of first-degree burglary, three counts of second-degree burglary, theft, and two counts of criminal damage. The trial court sentenced him to time served for the two criminal damage convictions and to a combination of consecutive and concurrent prison terms totaling thirty-eight years for the remaining convictions. On appeal, this court vacated one of Martinez's criminal damage convictions based on the trial court's failure to sever; we otherwise affirmed his convictions and sentences. State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0385 (Ariz. App. June 8, 2018) (mem. decision).
¶3 Martinez initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel filed a notice stating she had reviewed the record but had found no colorable claims to raise in a Rule 32 petition. In his subsequently filed pro se petition, Martinez asserted numerous claims, including that trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to 1) advise him regarding a plea agreement; 2) raise issues regarding the destruction of a pair of shoes seized as evidence and other evidence gathered by a crime-scene technician who resigned in lieu of being terminated from the police department after an internal investigation in an unrelated case; 3) file various motions, including a renewal of the request to sever and motions related to DNA testing of evidence; 4)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP