STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARTIN LEON CORRAL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED BY CLERK NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24 MAR 15 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MARTIN LEON CORRAL, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0338-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20072263 Honorable Richard D. Nichols, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines Martin Corral Tucson Attorneys for Respondent Florence In Propria Persona E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Following a jury trial, petitioner Martin Corral was convicted of aggravated driving under the influence of an intoxicant and aggravated driving with an alcohol concentration of .08 or greater, both committed while his license was suspended, revoked, or restricted. The trial court sentenced him to concurrent, presumptive, ten-year prison terms. We affirmed Corral s convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Corral, No. 2 CA-CR 2009-0261 (memorandum decision filed July 29, 2010). In October 2010, Corral filed a notice of post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Corral s attorney filed a notice in lieu of petition for post-conviction relief, citing Montgomery v. Sheldon, 181 Ariz. 256, 260, 889 P.2d 614, 618 (1995), stating she was unable to find any claims to assert on Corral s behalf and asking the court to give Corral the opportunity to file a pro se, supplemental petition. ¶2 Although the trial court granted Corral three extensions of the time for filing a pro se petition, he nevertheless failed to file a petition and, on June 21, 2011, the court dismissed the notice of post-conviction relief. In August, less than two months later, Corral filed a second notice of post-conviction relief. In that notice, he asserted, inter alia, that Rule 32 counsel had refuse[d] to follow the stated court order to [provide] assistance, . . . den[ied] defendant access to free transcripts[,] and completely desert[ed] him. Summarily dismissing the notice, the court summarized the history of the previous post-conviction proceeding, noting the repeated extensions it had granted and commenting that Corral had not shown good cause to warrant any further extensions of time. The court also found that, with respect to any claims Corral intended to raise, he had not established why they were not precluded, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a), and even if excepted from the rule of preclusion, why he should be permitted to raise them in a successive proceeding. The court denied Corral s subsequently filed motion for reconsideration. Corral now challenges those rulings. We will not disturb a trial court s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion. State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). We find no abuse here. 2 ¶3 In his petition for review, Corral basically reiterates the claims he had set forth in his notice of post-conviction relief and challenges the trial court s denial of his request to attain trial court transcripts. 1 But Corral does not argue, much less establish, how the court abused its discretion in summarily dismissing his notice of post-conviction relief and denying his motion for reconsideration. As we previously noted, the court explained the reasons for summarily dismissing the notice and denying the motion for reconsideration in thorough, clear minute entry orders. Based on the record before us, the court s rulings are correct. We therefore adopt them. See State v. Whipple, 177 Ariz. 272, 274, 866 P.2d 1358, 1360 (App. 1993). ¶4 We grant the petition for review but deny relief. /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge 1 The court noted it was unclear which transcripts Corral sought but found, in any event, that Corral had been provided with a complete case file. 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.