STATE OF ARIZONA v ALBERT MARTINEZ CARREON
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARIZONA En Banc STATE OF ARIZONA, ) ) Appellee, ) ) v. ) ) ALBERT MARTINEZ CARREON, ) ) Appellant. ) ) __________________________________) Arizona Supreme Court No. CR-03-0160-AP Maricopa County Superior Court No. CR 2001-090195 S U P P L E M E N T A L O P I N I O N Appeal from the Superior Court of Maricopa County Honorable James H. Keppel SENTENCES AFFIRMED ________________________________________________________________ TERRY GODDARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Capital Litigation Section Dawn M. Northup, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for the State of Arizona Phoenix JAMES J. HAAS, MARICOPA COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER Phoenix By Brent E. Graham, Deputy Public Defender Karen M. Noble, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Albert Martinez Carreon ________________________________________________________________ M c G R E G O R, Chief Justice ¶1 A jury convicted Albert Martinez Carreon degree murder and sentenced Carreon to death. of first The jury also convicted Carreon of several non-capital offenses, for which the trial judge imposed various terms of imprisonment. We affirmed his convictions and sentence of death in State v. Carreon, 210 Ariz. 54, ___ ¶ 100, 107 P.3d 900, 920 (2005). ¶2 In a supplemental brief filed after the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), Carreon challenged the procedure by which the trial court imposed convictions. aggravated sentences for his non-capital Carreon contends that the Sixth Amendment required a jury, not a judge, to find all of the aggravating factors on which the court relied in sentencing him. In our previous opinion in this case, we stated that we would address this issue in a supplemental opinion. P.3d at 922. Carreon, 210 Ariz. at ___ ¶ 125, 107 This is that opinion.1 We find no error. I. ¶3 The trial judge sentenced Carreon to aggravated prison terms on his non-capital convictions pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 13-604 (2001) and § 13-702 (2001). Carreon does not assert that the trial judge erred in relying upon these statutes. Carreon does not dispute that his use of a deadly weapon during the commission of his crimes brought him within the ambit of § 13-604 and does not argue that any sentence imposed for his non-capital offenses fell outside the sentencing range allowed under § 13-604 when one or more of the § 13-702.C aggravators are present. Carreon also acknowledges that the State proved to the jury that he previously had been convicted 1 We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6, Section 5.3 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S. § 13-4031 (2001). 2 of two felonies and that he committed the offenses while on release from the Department of Corrections. Carreon s only claim is that the trial judge violated his Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury by finding and relying upon aggravators other than those found by the jury. ¶4 Although the trial judge did not make specific findings of aggravation under A.R.S. § 13-702.C, he made the following statement with regard to the non-capital sentences: The defendant, as proven during the course of the trial, did have prior felony convictions and was on release at the time he committed these offenses. I further find that he s a stone-cold killer and a danger to society, all of which aggravating factors call for the maximum possible terms to be imposed. ¶5 The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant s right to a trial by jury. That right continues through sentencing. The Sixth Amendment, however, does not remove from a trial judge the traditional sentencing discretion afforded the judge, so long as the judge exercises that discretion within a sentencing range established by the fact of a prior conviction, facts found by a jury, or facts admitted by a defendant. Once a jury finds the facts legally essential to expose a defendant to a statutory sentencing range, the sentencing judge may consider additional factors in determining what sentence to impose, so long as the sentence falls within the established range.2 2 Only those facts that increase the maximum sentence to which a defendant is exposed are legally essential to the defendant s sentence. State v. Martinez, ___ Ariz. ___ ¶ 21, ___ P.3d ___ (2005). 3 State v. Martinez, ___ Ariz. ___ ¶ 16, ___ P.3d ___ (2005). ¶6 The State alleged and proved at trial that Carreon had previously been convicted aggravated assault. The of two presence felonies, of this kidnapping aggravator and alone exposed Carreon to the aggravated sentencing range of § 13-604. ¶7 Nonetheless, violated his Sixth Carreon alleges Amendment right that by the trial finding judge additional aggravating factors that were not admitted by him, not implicit in the jury s verdict, and not presented to the jury and found beyond a reasonable doubt. argument in We explicitly rejected Carreon s Martinez. constitutionally Under permitted factors our made holding Carreon there, eligible once for aggravated sentences, the trial judge could find and consider additional factors relevant to the imposition of a sentence up to the maximum prescribed in [the sentencing] statute. Martinez, ___ Ariz. at ___ ¶ 26, ___ P.3d at ___. II. ¶8 For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Carreon s non- capital sentences. _________________________________________ Ruth V. McGregor, Chief Justice 4 CONCURRING: _______________________________________ Rebecca White Berch, Vice Chief Justice _______________________________________ Michael D. Ryan, Justice _______________________________________ Andrew D. Hurwitz, Justice 5
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.
