State v. Martinez

• Decision Date: 01 July 1992
• Docket Number: No. 18883,18883
• Citation: 122 Idaho 193,832 P.2d 764
• Parties: STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Salvador A. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

Page 764

832 P.2d 764

122 Idaho 193

STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Salvador A. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 18883.

Court of Appeals of Idaho.

July 1, 1992.

Alan E. Trimming, Ada County Public Defender, Robert R. Chastain (argued), Deputy Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.

Larry EchoHawk, Atty. Gen., Michael A. Henderson (argued), Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff-respondent.

SWANSTROM, Judge.

This case presents a sentence review. In a jury trial, Salvador A. Martinez was found guilty of rape, forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object, and second degree kidnapping. I.C. §§ 18-6101, -6608, -4501, -4503. Martinez was sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence with twenty years fixed for rape, the identical sentence for forcible sexual penetration, and an indeterminate twenty-five year sentence with a minimum term of fifteen years for kidnapping. The court ordered that all sentences be served concurrently. Martinez contends that the sentences are excessive, and that the district court imposed these harsh sentences because of his efforts to defend himself when he thought his lawyer was not adequately representing him. We hold that Martinez has failed to demonstrate that his sentences are unreasonable, and we affirm.

The maximum penalty for rape is life imprisonment. I.C. § 18-6104. The maximum penalty for forcible sexual penetration with a foreign object is life imprisonment. I.C. § 18-6608. The maximum allowable penalty for second degree kidnapping is twenty-five years. I.C. § 18-4504. Where as here, "the sentence is not illegal, the defendant has the burden to prove that it is unreasonable, and thus a clear abuse of discretion." State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 144-45, 814 P.2d 401, 404-05 (1991), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992).

In order for Martinez to establish that his sentences are unreasonable, he must show that under any reasonable view of the facts, his sentences were excessive given the need to "accomplish the primary objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of the related goals of deterrence, rehabilitation or retribution applicable to a given case." State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct.App.1982). We treat the twenty-year fixed portion of Martinez's concurrent sentences as the term of confinement for appellate review. State v. Broadhead, supra.

It is Martinez's position on appeal that the sentences imposed are too severe and are attributable to his own efforts and persistence in presenting his defense. Among Martinez's actions were the filing of pro se motions for the substitution of counsel and challenging the jury, and the announcement on the record of his opinion that he was not given a fair trial and the reasons therefor. His pro se motion for substitution of counsel was based upon his allegation that the public defender had failed to advise him of the status of the case, that a conflict of interest existed, and that the public defender had essentially failed to zealously represent him. Martinez and the public defender informed the court that because Martinez was detained in Orofino, Idaho, during much of the time between the indictment and the trial, there existed some problems in communicating with each other. Martinez contends that his expression of dissatisfaction with the situation partly provoked the court into sentencing him harshly.

Martinez alleges that the following excerpts from the transcript of the hearing on the defendant's motion in limine establishes his contention that the court became upset and irritated with him:

MR. MARTINEZ: [I]'d like some time to discuss it with my lawyers, what that evidence is, because I think that it should be put into a suppression hearing.

THE COURT: These are matters that you should discuss--

MR. MARTINEZ: I've been 400 miles away.

THE COURT: Well,--

MR. MARTINEZ: This is the first time I seen them, again, since the last time I talked to them.

THE COURT: It's not doing you any good to talk to your attorney in the time you have and the time that you are spending in the courtroom talking to me about them. This is the time that you could be talking to him about them, which might do you some good.

So far as your motion on the Grand Jury, there's, in fact, statements that support that, nothing that is of affidavit form or otherwise, any records that would support those allegations. I'll sign an order disposing of that.

MR. MARTINEZ: Is it okay if I give an oral notice for a Notice of Appeal on that from the denial of the Grand Jury indictment? I had all my paperwork set up but they brought me out of the police on--

THE COURT: I think that you should be talking to your lawyer. Take up the next case.

We find nothing in the quoted portion...