State v. Martinez

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MARK ANTHONY MARTINEZ, Petitioner. No. 1 CA-CR 26-0131 PRPC FILED 10-30-2026 Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2020-001988-002 The Honorable Aryeh D. Schwartz, Judge REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Philip Garrow Counsel for Respondent Mark Anthony Martinez, Phoenix Petitioner  STATE v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Cynthia J. Bailey delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Angela K. Paton and Judge Michael J. Brown joined. B A I L E Y, Judge: ¶1 Mark Anthony Martinez seeks review of the superior court’s dismissal of his post-conviction relief (“PCR”) petition filed under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 33.1. We grant review but deny relief. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 A grand jury indicted Martinez for first-degree murder and kidnapping. The State amended the indictment by alleging that Martinez had several prior felony convictions. After participating in two settlement conferences with the State, Martinez entered a plea agreement that resulted in his conviction for second-degree murder with a 16-year flat-time prison sentence. ¶3 The presentence report detailed Martinez’s involvement in the crime and his admission to the police: The defendant . . . admitted to being present and participating in beating [Victim] up. He also admitted to injecting [Victim] with heroin while he was chained to a chair. He indicated [Victim] asked him to inject him due to both of his hands being tied down. He admitted he drove [Victim’s] Lincoln Navigator and dropped it off where police found it. The defendant changed his initial story and said when they drove [Victim] to the desert, they helped him walk and sat him down by a tree and he was alive and sitting up when they left. ¶4 Martinez filed a timely PCR notice. The superior court appointed counsel, who filed a completion notice stating that she could find no colorable claim. The court allowed Martinez to file a pro se PCR petition and appointed him advisory counsel and an investigator. 2  STATE v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court ¶5 Over the next two years, Martinez filed 18 motions to continue the deadline to file his PCR petition.1 The motions identified claims Martinez’s team was investigating, including “ineffective assistance of counsel,” “prosecutorial misconduct,” “due process violations,” “Brady violations,” “errors in how law enforcement handled the [case],” and “potential issues with the medical examiner’s report.” On the 17th motion, the court found that no “extraordinary circumstances” warranted a continuance and noted that over two years had passed since counsel asserted no colorable claims existed. Even so, the court extended the time to file by 60 days but warned that if Martinez did not meet the new deadline, the court would dismiss the proceeding. ¶6 Martinez then filed his 18th continuance motion. As in his four previous motions, he requested time to meet with and obtain reports from his private investigator and police policy expert. He also stated that his investigator had recently experienced health problems. ¶7 The court denied Martinez’s 18th continuance motion and dismissed the proceeding, finding that “[n]o extraordinary circumstances appear.” Martinez petitioned this court for review under Rule 33.16. We have jurisdiction under Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-4239(C). DISCUSSION ¶8 We will not disturb the superior court’s ruling on a PCR petition absent an abuse of discretion or error of law. State v. Evans, 252 Ariz. 590, 594, ¶ 7 (App. 2022). A defendant must strictly comply with the rules to be eligible for PCR. See Canion v. Cole, 210 Ariz. 598, 600, ¶ 11 (2005). It is a petitioner’s burden to show the superior court abused its discretion by denying the PCR petition. State v. Reed, 252 Ariz. 236, 238, ¶ 6 (App. 2021). ¶9 Arizona’s Victims’ Bill of Rights, enshrined in the Arizona Constitution, expressly grants crime victims the right to a prompt and final conclusion of criminal proceedings. Ariz. Const. art. II, § 2.1(A)(10). To implement this constitutional right, our supreme court promulgated Rule 33.7(a)(3), which provides that [f]or good cause and after considering the rights of the victim to a prompt and final conclusion of the case, the court may 1 Martinez filed 20 motions for an extension of time to file his PCR petition, but the superior court addressed them in only 18 orders because he twice filed his motions closely in time. 3  STATE v. MARTINEZ Decision of the Court grant a defendant a 30-day extension to file the [PCR] petition. The court may grant additional 30-day extensions only on a showing of extraordinary circumstances. ¶10 We review a court’s decision on a continuance motion for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Lukezic, 143 Ariz. 60, 68 (1984); State v. Forde, 233 Ariz. 543, 555, ¶ 18 (2014). Generally, a defendant must ensure that a continuance motion states specific reasons for the request, and the record must reflect the asserted grounds, to preserve an objection to the denial for appellate review. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 8.5(a); Hadley v. State, 25 Ariz. 23, 26– 27 (1923). ¶11 In his review petition, Martinez claims his 18th continuance motion established “good cause” for an extension. But Rule 33.7(a)(3) required Martinez to establish “extraordinary circumstances,” not just “good cause.” And after 18 continuance motions and more than two years of delay, the court acted within its discretion in finding a lack of extraordinary circumstances, especially given the similarity between Martinez’s five most recent motions. We discern no error in the court’s denial of the continuance and dismissal of the proceeding. CONCLUSION ¶12 We grant review but deny relief. MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court FILED: JR 4