State v. Martinez-Romero, 1 CA-CR 16-0441

Appellant Luis Martinez-Romero was indicted on 21 felony counts involving two minor victims: multiple counts of sexual abuse, sexual conduct with a minor, attempted sexual conduct with a minor, and child molestation; several counts were alleged as dangerous crimes against children.
Victim 1 (born 1996) alleged repeated abuse beginning around age 8 and continuing through age 15; DNA from swabs could not exclude Appellant as a contributor. Victim 2 (born 1997) reported three inappropriate touches at ages 13–14. Appellant confessed during a police interview and wrote apology letters.
A jury convicted Appellant on 20 of 21 counts (acquitted on one child-molestation count). Eleven convictions were dangerous-crimes-against-children findings.
The trial court imposed two consecutive life terms (Counts 2 and 5) plus additional consecutive and concurrent terms totaling 122 years, to run consecutive to the life terms.
Appellant’s appellate counsel filed an Anders/Robbins brief asserting no non-frivolous issues and asked the court to review the record for fundamental error; Appellant was permitted to file a pro se supplemental brief but did not.
The court affirmed convictions and sentences, and corrected the sentencing minute entry to show Counts 9 and 10 were sentenced as repetitive offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Martinez-Romero)	Held
Whether any non-frivolous appellate issues exist warranting reversal	No reversible error; evidence sufficient; trial fair	Counsel filed Anders brief claiming no non-frivolous issues; Appellant submitted no pro se brief	Court found no reversible error and affirmed convictions and sentences
Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions	Evidence (victim testimony, DNA, confession) supports verdicts	Insufficient evidence argument reviewed via Anders procedure	Court held evidence was substantial and supports the verdicts
Procedural/fair-trial claims (jury, instructions, counsel, sentencing process)	Proceedings complied with constitutional and procedural requirements	Alleged errors (if any) were frivolous per Anders brief	Court found procedures, jury composition, instructions, juror polling, counsel performance, and sentencing process proper
Sentencing minute entry accuracy (Counts 9 & 10 repetitive)	Sentences reflected repetitive offender treatment for Counts 9 & 10	Sentencing minute entry erroneously listed those counts as non-repetitive	Court corrected the minute entry to reflect Counts 9 & 10 are repetitive offenses

Robbins v. California, 528 U.S. 259 (Anders/robust-review framework for appointed counsel asserting no nonfrivolous issues)
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (procedure when appellate counsel seeks to withdraw asserting no meritorious issues)
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (appellate review under Anders/Leon procedures)
State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (standard for independent review for fundamental error)
State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582 (counsel’s post-appeal obligations and notice to defendant of options)
State v. Vandever, 211 Ariz. 206 (appellate court authority to correct clerical/sentencing minute-entry errors)