State v. Martinez
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
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 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. HENRIETTA YVONNE MARTINEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DIVISION ONE FILED: 07-22-2010 PHILIP G. URRY,CLERK BY: GH 1 CA-CR 09-0645 1 CA-CR 09-0648 1 CA-CR 09-0649 (Consolidated) DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause Nos. CR 2006-012826-001 DT CR 2006-012827-001 DT CR 2009-104465-001 DT The Honorable Christopher T. Whitten, Judge AFFIRMED Terry Goddard, Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Margaret M. Green, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix N O R R I S, Judge ¶1 Henrietta Yvonne Martinez timely appeals from her conviction and sentence for taking the identity of another, a class four felony (CR 2009-104465-001 DT), and her sentences for fraudulent schemes and artifices, a class two felony (CR 2006012827-001 DT), and unlawful possession of an access device, a class five felony (CR 2006-012826-001 DT). After searching the record on appeal and finding no arguable question of law that was not frivolous, Martinez s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 451 P.2d 878 (1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. granted counsel s motion to allow Martinez This court to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but Martinez chose not to do so. After reviewing the entire record, we find no fundamental error and, therefore, affirm Martinez s conviction and sentences. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 ¶2 In May 2008, Martinez purchased a new Chevrolet Silverado for approximately $50,000 with financing she obtained using the social security number and name of the victim. In August 2008, the victim discovered the loan on her credit report and several Martinez. months A grand later jury detectives indicted 1 tracked Martinez the for truck taking to the We view the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury s verdict and resolve all inferences against Martinez. State v. Guerra, 161 Ariz. 289, 293, 778 P.2d 1185, 1189 (1989). 2 identity of another and theft of means of transportation. On June 12, 2009, a jury convicted Martinez on taking the identity of another, the superior court declared a mistrial as to the theft of means of transportation charge, and the State dismissed this charge with prejudice. ¶3 At trial on Martinez s prior felony conviction, the superior court found the State had proven beyond a reasonable doubt Martinez had been convicted of fraudulent artifices, a class two felony, in 2006. her current conviction placed her in schemes or The court also found automatic violation of probation for her prior felony and another felony committed in 2006, unlawful possession of an access device. The court sentenced Martinez to three presumptive terms: 4.5 years for taking the identity of another, with 205 days of presentence incarceration credit; five years for fraudulent schemes or artifices, with 257 days of incarceration credit; and 1.5 years for unlawful possession of an access device, with 225 days of incarceration credit. The sentences for the 2006 convictions were to run concurrently to each other and consecutive to the 2009 conviction. DISCUSSION ¶4 We have reviewed error and find none. 881. the entire record for reversible See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300, 451 P.2d at Martinez received a fair trial. 3 She was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and was present at all critical stages. ¶5 The evidence presented at trial was substantial and supports the verdict. members and the The jury was properly comprised of twelve court properly instructed the jury on the elements of the charges, Martinez s presumption of innocence, the State s burden of proof, and the necessity of a unanimous verdict. The superior court received and considered a presentence report, Martinez was given an opportunity to speak at sentencing, and her sentences were within the range of acceptable sentences for her offenses. CONCLUSION ¶6 We decline to order briefing and affirm Martinez s conviction and sentences. ¶7 After the filing of this decision, defense counsel s obligations pertaining appeal have ended. to Martinez s representation in this Defense counsel need do no more than inform Martinez of the outcome of this appeal and her future options, unless, upon review, counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review. State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85, 684 P.2d 154, 156-57 (1984). ¶8 Martinez has 30 days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she wishes, with an in propria persona petition for 4 review. days On the court s own motion, we also grant Martinez 30 from the date of this decision to file an in propria persona motion for reconsideration. /s/ __________________________________ PATRICIA K. NORRIS, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ ________________________________ JOHN C. GEMMILL, Presiding Judge /s/ ________________________________ MAURICE PORTLEY, Judge 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.
