STATE OF ARIZONA v. LUIS PEDRO CASTRO MARTINEZ
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 OCT 29 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. LUIS PEDRO CASTRO MARTINEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0067 DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause No. CR20110262001 Honorable Teresa Godoy, Judge Pro Tempore AFFIRMED Lori J. Lefferts, Pima County Public Defender By David J. Euchner V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Tucson Attorneys for Appellant ¶1 After a jury trial, appellant Luis Martinez was convicted of possession of a narcotic drug and sentenced to a mitigated, one-year prison term to be served concurrently with sentences imposed in Pima County Cause No. CR20110832001. Counsel has filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), avowing he has reviewed the record and found no arguable legal issues to raise on appeal. In compliance with State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, 2 P.3d 89, 97 (App. 1999), counsel also has provided a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record, [so] this court can satisfy itself that counsel has in fact thoroughly reviewed the record. Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have reviewed the record in its entirety and are satisfied it supports counsel s recitation of the facts. Martinez has not filed a supplemental brief. Viewed in the light most favorable to upholding the jury s verdict, see State ¶2 v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2, 986 P.2d 914, 914 (App. 1999), the evidence established that Martinez was a passenger in a vehicle that was the subject of a high-risk stop by Tucson Police Department officers on December 1, 2010. After Martinez was arrested, apparently on an unrelated charge,1 a police officer searched his pockets and found a cigarette pack containing a small wrapper of a powdery substance that was later determined to be heroin. We conclude substantial evidence supported findings of all the elements necessary for Martinez s conviction, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(20)(iii) and (21)(m), 13-3408(A)(1), and his sentence is authorized by law, see A.R.S. § 13-702(D). 1 Facts related to the reasons for the high-risk stop and Martinez s arrest were precluded by Martinez s successful motion in limine. 2 ¶3 In our examination of the record pursuant to Anders, we have found no reversible error and no arguable issue warranting further appellate review. See Anders, 386 U.S. at 744. Accordingly, we affirm Martinez s conviction and sentence. /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge 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.
