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 DIVISION ONE FILED: 09/20/2012 RUTH A. WILLINGHAM, CLERK BY: sls IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. YESENIA MARTINEZ, Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1 CA-CR 11-0887 DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION (Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court) Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2011-101467-001 The Honorable Susanna C. Pineda, Judge AFFIRMED Phoenix Thomas C. Horne, Arizona Attorney General By Kent E. Cattani, Chief Counsel Criminal Appeals/Capital Litigation Section Attorneys for Appellee James J. Haas, Maricopa County Public Defender By Terry J. Adams, Deputy Public Defender Attorneys for Appellant Phoenix T I M M E R, Presiding Judge ¶1 Yesenia Martinez appeals her conviction and resulting disposition after a jury convicted her of aggravated assault, a class five felony, and resisting arrest, a class six undesignated felony. Martinez s counsel filed a brief in accordance with Smith v. Robbins, 528 U.S. 259 (2000), Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, 2 P.3d 89 (App. 1999), advising this court that after a search of the entire record on appeal, he found no arguable grounds for reversal. This court granted Martinez an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in propria persona, but she has not done so. appeal pursuant Constitution and to We have jurisdiction to consider this Article Arizona 6, Revised Section Statutes 9, of the ( A.R.S. ) Arizona sections 12-120.21(A)(1) (2003), 13-4031 (2001), and -4033(A)(1) and (3) (2001). For the following reasons, we affirm. DISCUSSION ¶2 We have read and considered counsel s brief and have searched the entire record for reversible error. State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297, 300, 451 P.2d 878, 881 (1969). We find none. The record shows that Martinez was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings and on appeal, and that the trial court afforded Martinez all of her rights under the constitution, our statutes, and the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure. law. The disposition was within the range prescribed by Clark, 196 Ariz. at 541, ¶ 50, 2 P.3d at 100. 2 CONCLUSION ¶3 After obligations the filing pertaining to of this Martinez s decision, representation counsel s in this appeal have ended. Counsel need do no more than inform Martinez of the the unless status of counsel s appeal review and reveals Martinez s future an appropriate issue options, 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). Martinez shall have thirty days from the date of this decision to proceed, if she desires, with an in propria persona motion for reconsideration or petition for review. ¶4 Accordingly, we affirm Martinez s resulting disposition. /s/ Ann A. Scott Timmer Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ John C. Gemmill, Judge /s/ Margaret H. Downie, Judge 3 conviction and
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.
