State v. Martinez
1 CA-CR 16-0362
| Ariz. Ct. App. | Mar 21, 2017Background
- In Sept. 2014 Martinez and codefendants were indicted for: possession of dangerous drugs for sale (Count 1), transportation of dangerous drugs for sale (Count 2), possession of dangerous drugs (Count 3), and possession of drug paraphernalia (Count 4).
- Trooper Solomon stopped the vehicle for erratic driving; Martinez was seated in the rear passenger area. A K‑9 alerted; a small bag of methamphetamine was found in the map pocket immediately in front of Martinez and ~6.5 pounds of methamphetamine were found in the trunk.
- At trial the jury convicted Martinez of Count 1 (possession for sale), Count 2 (transportation for sale), and Count 4 (paraphernalia); acquitted on Count 3.
- Martinez was sentenced to concurrent presumptive terms (10 years on Counts 1 and 2; 1 year on Count 4) and fined $274,500; Martinez appealed.
- The appellate court vacated the possession-for-sale conviction (Count 1) as incidental to the transportation conviction (Count 2), and otherwise affirmed Counts 2 and 4 and the sentences (modified by vacatur of Count 1).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Martinez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether possession-for-sale (Count 1) is a lesser-included/offense incidental to transportation-for-sale (Count 2) | Both convictions arise from same 6.5 lbs. in trunk; possession-for-sale is incidental | Convictions should both stand | Vacated Count 1 as incidental to Count 2 (lesser-included) |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove Martinez knowingly transported drugs | Evidence of trip planning, co‑defendant testimony that trip purpose was drug transport, drugs located immediately in front of Martinez, and his Malverde bracelet supported knowledge | Martinez argued he did not know drugs were in the car | Evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to find knowledge; conviction for transportation affirmed |
| Admissibility of expert testimony about Jesus Malverde (drug patron saint) | Testimony was admissible for impeachment of Martinez’s claimed lack of knowledge, not offered as substantive proof | Martinez argued this was impermissible profiling (Lee) | Trial court did not abuse discretion; testimony admissible for impeachment context |
| Sentencing: presumptive term and fine | State: presumptive sentence appropriate given factors | Martinez argued presumptive term and fine excessive | Court upheld presumptive sentence as within discretion; fine challenge waived for lack of developed argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (procedural standards for counsel on appeal)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedures when counsel finds no meritorious issues)
- State v. Chabolla-Hinojosa, 192 Ariz. 360 (lesser-included offense analysis)
- Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (court-ordered briefing when appellate counsel finds no error)
- State v. Lee, 191 Ariz. 542 (limits on profiling-type evidence)
- State v. Rodriguez, 186 Ariz. 240 (deference to trial court on admissibility/relevance of evidence)
- State v. Fell, 210 Ariz. 554 (presumptive sentence framework)