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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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, Appellee,

v.

ANTHONY JOSE MARTINEZ, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 24-0417
FILED 05-11-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County
No. S0300CR202000631
The Honorable Ted Stuart Reed, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix
By Alice Jones
Counsel for Appellee

Janelle A. McEachern Attorney at Law, Chandler
By Janelle A. McEachern
Counsel for Appellant
STATE v. MARTINEZ
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Veronika Fabian delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge Michael J. Brown and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.

F A B I A N, Judge:

¶1 Anthony Jose Martinez appeals his convictions and sentences
for one count of first-degree murder, two counts of child abuse, two counts
of kidnapping, and two counts of aggravated assault. Martinez’s counsel
filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and
State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 (1969), certifying that, after a diligent search of
the record, she found no arguable questions of law. Counsel asks this Court
to search the record for reversible error. Martinez had the opportunity to
file a supplemental brief but did not do so. Having reviewed the record,
this Court affirms Martinez’s convictions and sentences.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 This Court views the facts in the light most favorable to
sustaining the convictions and resolves all reasonable inferences against
Martinez. State v. Fontes, 195 Ariz. 229, 230 ¶ 2 (App. 1998).

¶3 In March 2020, an officer responded to a 911 call at an
apartment where D.M., who was six years old, was not breathing. Martinez,
D.M.’s father, was at the apartment along with D.M.’s mother,
grandmother, and three other children. The officer could not perform CPR
on D.M. because when he tried to open D.M.’s jaw, it was rigid. Firefighters
also responded to a call and determined that because D.M. showed signs of
rigor mortis, any effort to save him would have been unsuccessful. D.M.’s
eyes and cheeks were sunken in, he had no fat or muscle on his body, and
his skin was stretched over his bones. At the time of his autopsy, D.M.
weighed 18 pounds. A forensic pathologist determined D.M.’s cause of
death was starvation.

¶4 Later that day, a Flagstaff Police Department detective
interviewed two of the other children. The detective testified at trial that
A.M., who was seven years old, looked emaciated, became increasingly
lethargic during his interview, and repeatedly asked for food. Based on
A.M.’s energy level and behavior, he was transported to Flagstaff Medical

2
STATE v. MARTINEZ
Decision of the Court

Center. A.M.’s condition required a larger medical facility, so he was
transferred to Phoenix Children’s Hospital. A.M. weighed 28 pounds and
had no fat on his face or fat or muscle on his arms or legs. When the hospital
treated A.M. for severe malnourishment, A.M. experienced refeeding
syndrome, which occurs when a severely malnourished person eats and can
be fatal.

¶5 The police served a search warrant at the apartment and
found a significant amount of food in the kitchen. They also obtained
surveillance video at a grocery store showing Martinez shopping.

¶6 During their investigation, police learned that D.M. and A.M.
would sleep in a bedroom closet while Martinez sat in a chair overnight
playing video games, guarding the closet so they could not leave to get
food. They would remain in the closet for 16 hours. The police also found
damp orange plastic in the closet that smelled like urine.

¶7 When the police tried to arrest Martinez, he resisted. During
the struggle to arrest him, Martinez injured a detective and damaged
another officer’s uniform.

¶8 The State charged Martinez with first-degree murder (count
1), a class 1 felony; two counts of child abuse (counts 2 and 3), a class 2
felony; two counts of kidnapping (counts 4 and 5), a class 2 felony; and two
counts of aggravated assault (counts 6 and 7), one class 4 felony and one
class 5 felony. See A.R.S. §§ 13-1105(A)(2) (first-degree murder);
13-3623(A)(1) (child abuse); 13-1304(A)(3) (kidnapping); 13-1204(A)(8)(a)
(aggravated assault). The State alleged the first-degree murder, child abuse,
and kidnapping charges were dangerous crimes against children and
domestic violence offenses.

¶9 The court held a 13-day trial with 12 jurors and 6 alternates.
Following the close of Martinez’s case-in-chief, he moved for a judgment of
acquittal under Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 20. The superior court
denied the motion. Martinez did not testify in his own defense.

¶10 The jury entered guilty verdicts on all charges and found the
victims were under the age of 15 on the child abuse and kidnapping counts.

¶11 The court sentenced Martinez to natural life for count 1 with
a presentence incarceration credit of 1,580 days. See A.R.S. § 13-751(A)(3).
On counts 2, 3, 4, and 5, the court sentenced Martinez to presumptive terms
of 17 calendar years in prison with no presentence incarceration credit. See
A.R.S. § 13-705(F). On count 6, the court sentenced Martinez to a

3
STATE v. MARTINEZ
Decision of the Court

presumptive term of 2.5 years in prison with a presentence incarceration
credit of 1,580 days. See A.R.S. § 13-702(D). On count 7, the court sentenced
Martinez to a presumptive term of 1.5 years in prison with a presentence
incarceration credit of 1,580 days. See id. The court ordered the first five
counts be served consecutively and counts 6 and 7 be served concurrently
with the other imposed sentences.

¶12 Martinez timely appealed. This Court has jurisdiction under
Article VI, Section 9 of the Arizona Constitution and A.R.S.
§§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶13 This Court has read and considered counsel’s brief and has
reviewed the record for arguable issues of reversible error. State v.
Thompson, 229 Ariz. 43, 45 ¶ 3 (App. 2012). This Court finds none.

¶14 The record reflects that the superior court afforded Martinez
all his constitutional and statutory rights and that it conducted the
proceedings in compliance with the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Martinez was represented by counsel at all critical stages. The evidence
presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury’s verdicts. The jury was
properly composed and instructed and there is no evidence of misconduct.
Martinez’s sentences fall within the ranges prescribed by law, with proper
credit given for presentence incarceration.

CONCLUSION

¶15 This Court affirms Martinez’s conviction and sentence.
Unless defense counsel finds an issue appropriate for submission to the
Arizona Supreme Court by petition for review, her obligations regarding
Martinez’s appeal will end after informing him of the outcome of this
appeal and his future options. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85
(1984). This Court also, of its own accord, grants Martinez thirty days from
the date of this decision to proceed, if he desires, with a motion for

4
STATE v. MARTINEZ
Decision of the Court

reconsideration or a petition for review with the Arizona Supreme Court.
See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.3(a), 31.20(c), 31.21(b)(2)(A).

MATTHEW J. MARTIN • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JR

5