State v. Martin, 1 CA-CR 15-0129-PRPC

Background

Justin Lee Martin was convicted by a jury of multiple offenses arising from five separate incidents, including armed robbery, kidnapping, theft of means of transportation, weapons misconduct, and second-degree burglary; the trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of four consecutive life terms.
Martin’s convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. He then filed a timely Rule 32 post-conviction relief petition alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct, including the State’s use of perjured testimony and unconstitutional searches/seizures and self-incrimination violations.
The trial court dismissed Martin’s petition as precluded under Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a) (claims that could have been raised on direct appeal), and found Martin failed to state a colorable ineffective-assistance claim under Strickland.
Martin sought appellate review arguing the trial court erred by (1) precluding his perjury/false-testimony claims, (2) that use of false testimony violated due process, (3) that the court should have held an evidentiary hearing on counsel’s failure to object to false testimony, and (4) that cumulative errors demanded relief.
The Court of Appeals granted review but denied relief, holding the asserted claims were precluded or inadequately pleaded and that Martin failed to show deficient performance or prejudice sufficient to warrant an evidentiary hearing.

Issues

Issue	Martin's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Were Martin’s claims about the State’s use of perjured/false testimony improperly precluded?	Perjury claims were properly raised in post-conviction proceedings and some evidence lies outside the trial record.	Claims were waived or could have been raised on direct appeal and thus are precluded by Rule 32.2(a).	Precluded: trial court did not err; Martin failed to show they fit a Rule 32.2(b) exception.
2. Did the State’s alleged use of known false testimony violate due process?	Use of known false testimony is a fundamental due process violation warranting relief.	The claim was substantive and should have been raised earlier; Martin offered no newly discovered facts or proof.	Denied: claim is precluded and not supported by materials showing a due process violation.
3. Was the summary dismissal improper because the court should have held an evidentiary hearing on ineffective assistance for failure to object to false testimony?	Counsel was ineffective for not objecting, impeaching, clarifying the record, or investigating; an evidentiary hearing was required.	Martin’s allegations were generalized, tactical, and unsupported; no colorable Strickland showing of deficient performance or prejudice.	Denied: no colorable ineffective-assistance claim; no hearing required.
4. Should cumulative prejudicial effect of errors plus false testimony warrant relief?	Combined errors and false testimony produced prejudice and require reversal or relief.	Cumulative- error claim was not raised below and cannot be considered on review.	Not considered/rejected: issue not presented to trial court, so appellate court will not consider it.

Key Cases Cited

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for ineffective assistance of counsel: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. D'Ambrosio, 156 Ariz. 71 (1988) (trial court has discretion in determining whether a petition presents a colorable claim)
State v. Curtis, 185 Ariz. 112 (1996) (petitioner cannot evade preclusion simply by alleging prior counsel ineffective)
State v. Borbon, 146 Ariz. 392 (1985) (mere generalizations and unsubstantiated claims do not require an evidentiary hearing)
State v. Vickers, 180 Ariz. 521 (1994) (disagreements over reasonable trial strategy do not establish ineffective assistance when a reasoned basis exists)
State v. Salazar, 146 Ariz. 540 (1985) (if a defendant fails to show prejudice or deficient performance, a court need not address the other Strickland prong)