STATE OF ARIZONA v. MARTIN LEON CORRAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MARTIN LEON CORRAL, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0016 Filed May 4, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20081114 The Honorable Howard Fell, Judge Pro Tempore REVIEW DENIED COUNSEL Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent Martin Corral, Tucson In Propria Persona STATE v. CORRAL Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Miller authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Vásquez and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred. M I L L E R, Judge: ¶1 Martin Corral seeks review of the trial court’s ruling denying his petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We deny review. ¶2 After a jury trial, Corral was convicted of two counts of aggravated assault and one count each of aggravated driving with an illegal drug or its metabolite in his body, criminal damage, and fleeing from a law-enforcement vehicle. The trial court imposed a combination of concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling 35.5 years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Corral, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0189 (memorandum decision filed Aug. 26, 2011). Corral then sought post-conviction relief, arguing his trial counsel had been ineffective in failing to adequately raise issues related to his competency and there was newly discovered evidence relevant to that issue. The trial court denied relief, and we denied relief on review. State v. Corral, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0289 (memorandum decision filed Nov. 28, 2014). ¶3 In December 2014, Corral filed a notice of postconviction relief. Appointed counsel filed a notice stating he had reviewed the record but had found no claims to raise; counsel later filed, on Corral’s behalf, a pro se petition for post-conviction relief. In that petition, Corral offered “to take a lie test” to show that his version of events—that he was beaten up after an accident and had not been on his medication—was true. The trial court summarily denied the petition. This petition for review followed. ¶4 On review, Corral discusses issues similar to those addressed in his first Rule 32 proceeding. Those claims were not raised in Corral’s most recent proceeding and are not properly 2 STATE v. CORRAL Decision of the Court before us on review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(1)(ii) (petition for review shall contain “[t]he issues which were decided by the trial court . . . which the defendant wishes to present . . . for review”). The time has long passed for Corral to seek review of our memorandum decision upholding the trial court’s decision to reject those claims. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.18, 31.19, 32.9(g). And Corral does not discuss in his petition for review his most-recent postconviction proceeding. ¶5 For these reasons, we deny review. 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.
