STATE OF ARIZONA v. RICHARD MARTINEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. RICHARD MARTINEZ, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0221-PR Filed September 19, 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. CR20080065 The Honorable Jane L. Eikleberry, Judge REVIEW DENIED COUNSEL Barbara LaWall, Pima County Attorney By Jacob R. Lines, Deputy County Attorney, Tucson Counsel for Respondent STATE v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court Richard Martinez, Florence In Propria Persona MEMORANDUM DECISION Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Howard and Judge Espinosa concurred. S T A R I N G, Judge: ¶1 Citing Rule 32.9(c), Ariz. R. Crim. P., Richard Martinez seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his motions requesting review of his consecutive sentences and number of days of presentence incarceration credit. We deny review. ¶2 In 2008, Martinez pled guilty to four counts of armed robbery and seven counts of aggravated assault; he was sentenced to a combination of concurrent and consecutive prison terms totaling twenty-one years. The trial court later resentenced Martinez because the state had violated the plea agreement by recommending consecutive sentences. The court imposed the same aggregate twenty-one year prison term. ¶3 Martinez has repeatedly sought and been denied postconviction relief. See, e.g., State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0147PR (Ariz. App. Sept. 3, 2015) (mem. decision); State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2014-0030-PR (Ariz. App. June 17, 2014) (mem. decision); State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2012-0235-PR (Ariz. App. Sept. 13, 2012) (mem. decision); State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2011-0358-PR (Ariz. App. Mar. 15, 2012) (mem. decision); State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0066-PR (Ariz. App. Aug. 17, 2010) (mem. decision). In March 2015, Martinez filed two “Motion[s] for a hearing” in which he claimed that the trial court was required to recalculate his presentence incarceration credit at resentencing and had failed to do so, and that it also had failed to “set[] forth its reasons” for consecutive sentences. The court denied those motions and 2 STATE v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court Martinez’s subsequent motions for reconsideration. This petition for review followed. ¶4 Martinez did not cite Rule 32 in his motions below, and the trial court did not address his requests under Rule 32. Thus, despite Martinez’s citation to Rule 32.9(c) in his petition filed in this court, there is no ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief for us to review.1 We therefore deny review. 1 Even had Martinez sought relief pursuant to Rule 32, the proceeding was patently untimely and he has identified no basis for relief that can be raised in an untimely post-conviction proceeding. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.4(a). 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.
