Filed: Sep. 19, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 19, 2016
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION STARING , 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 ple
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24. MEMORANDUM DECISION STARING , 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..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, 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 post-conviction relief. See, e.g., State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2015-0147-PR (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 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.
