State v. Martens, 1 CA-CR 16-0531

Background

Martens was found viewing child pornography at an ASU library; police seized images and charged him with ten counts of sexual exploitation of a minor (Class 2 felonies, dangerous crimes against children).
At pretrial the State alleged two prior military felony convictions and a federal conviction for sentence-enhancement purposes; Martens objected to the admission and sufficiency of proof for the military convictions.
The State introduced two uncertified U.S. Air Force “Report of Investigation” summaries and a certified federal conviction record that referenced (but did not independently establish) the military convictions.
Martens admitted during a pretrial police interview to having been dishonorably discharged for possession of child pornography, but he was not given the Rule 17 advisement and was not under oath or represented when he made the statement.
The superior court treated the Air Force reports as sufficient to find two historical prior felony convictions and imposed mandatory consecutive life sentences; Martens appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether uncertified Air Force reports suffice to prove historical prior felony convictions for sentence enhancement	State: Air Force reports (with name, DOB, SSN) plus certified federal record referencing them are sufficient	Martens: Uncertified reports lack certification, identification, and conviction proof; insufficient	Court: Uncertified Air Force reports insufficient to establish historical prior convictions; enhancement vacated
Whether Martens’s pretrial statement to police constituted an admissible admission of prior convictions under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 17	State: Admission to detective could qualify as admission of priors	Martens: Statement was not made in open court under Rule 17 procedures and was not under oath or subject to cross-examination	Court: Pretrial interview admission did not satisfy Rule 17 or the trial-admission exception; cannot be accepted
Whether Rule 404(c) finding that defendant committed prior acts equates to finding prior convictions for enhancement	State: Court previously found Rule 404(c) other-act evidence sufficient	Martens: 404(c) requires proof of prior acts, not convictions	Court: 404(c) finding is distinct and insufficient for §13-703 enhancement; convictions require reliable proof
Whether any error was waived for failure to object	State: Martens failed to object at trial so review should be for fundamental error	Martens: He objected pretrial and at sentencing	Court: Objections were made; error not waived and reviewed de novo

Key Cases Cited

State v. Cons, 208 Ariz. 409 (App. 2004) (prior convictions for enhancement require positive identification and reliable documentary proof, preferably certified copies)
State v. Robles, 213 Ariz. 268 (App. 2006) (courts may consider other evidence but need reliable documentary evidence to prove priors)
State v. Nash, 143 Ariz. 392 (1985) (use of certified out-of-state commitment or conviction records to prove priors)
State v. Whitney, 159 Ariz. 476 (1988) (exception allowing admission of priors when defendant admits on the stand at trial)
State v. Rasul, 216 Ariz. 491 (App. 2007) (standard of review: determining historical prior felony convictions is a mixed question reviewed de novo)
State v. Anderson, 199 Ariz. 187 (App. 2000) (de novo review whether court properly accepted defendant’s admission of priors)
In re C.D., 240 Ariz. 239 (App. 2016) (use of certified minute entries to establish prior adjudications)
State v. Goudeau, 239 Ariz. 421 (2016) (rules governing other-act evidence under Rule 404(c) are distinct from proving prior convictions)