STATE OF ARIZONA v. JACK MARTINEZ
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JACK MARTINEZ, Appellant. No. 2 CA-CR 2020-0078 Filed January 25, 2021 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 NOT FOR PUBLICATION See Ariz.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. 31.19(e). Appeal from the Superior Court in Pima County No. CR20191528002 The Honorable James E. Marner, Judge AFFIRMED COUNSEL Joel Feinman, Pima County Public Defender By Abigail Jensen, Assistant Public Defender, Tucson Counsel for Appellant STATE v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Eppich authored the decision of the Court, in which Chief Judge Vásquez and Judge Brearcliffe concurred. E P P I C H, Presiding Judge: ¶1 After a jury trial, Jack Martinez was convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of a dangerous drug, and transfer of a dangerous drug exceeding the statutory threshold amount. The trial court found Martinez had two historical prior felony convictions and sentenced him to concurrent sentences, the longest of which is ten years. ¶2 Counsel filed a brief in compliance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), and State v. Clark, 196 Ariz. 530 (App. 1999), stating she has reviewed the record but found no “meritorious issue to raise on appeal.” Consistent with Clark, 196 Ariz. 530, ¶ 32, counsel has provided “a detailed factual and procedural history of the case with citations to the record,” and has asked this court to review the record for fundamental error. Martinez has not filed a supplemental brief. ¶3 Viewed in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s verdicts, see State v. Tamplin, 195 Ariz. 246, ¶ 2 (App. 1999), the evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s findings of guilt, see A.R.S. §§ 13-3401(6)(c)(xxxviii), (36)(e), 13-3407(A)(1), (7), 13-3415(A), (F)(2)(j). The evidence presented at trial showed that on March 21, 2019, Martinez sold approximately an ounce of methamphetamine to an undercover police officer in exchange for $350 in marked bills; the sale took place inside the officer’s vehicle, near a residence Martinez had exited before the sale and which he reentered afterward. Later, when officers sought to make contact with the occupants of the residence and announced their presence, Martinez ran out the back door and attempted to hop over a fence. Martinez dropped a digital scale and two bags of money containing bills that matched the marked bills, and an officer found a sock with three baggies containing methamphetamine in one of his pockets and a baggie containing methamphetamine residue in another pocket. Sufficient evidence also supports the trial court’s finding that Martinez had two historical prior felony convictions, and the sentences imposed are within 2 STATE v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court the statutory range. See A.R.S. §§ 13-105(22)(b), 13-703(C), (J), 13-3407(D), (E). ¶4 Pursuant to our obligation under Anders, we have searched the record for reversible error and have found none. Accordingly, we affirm Martinez’s convictions and sentences. 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.
