Opinion
2 CA-CR 2022-0089-PR
02-01-2023
The State of Arizona, Respondent, v. Luis Mariano Martinez, Petitioner.
Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Thomas C. McDermott, Deputy County Attorney, Florence Counsel for Respondent Luis M. Martinez, Florence In Propria Persona
Not for Publication - Rule 111(c), Rules of the Arizona Supreme Court
Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Pinal County No. S1100CR99026111 The Honorable Jason R. Holmberg, Judge
Kent P. Volkmer, Pinal County Attorney By Thomas C. McDermott, Deputy County Attorney, Florence Counsel for Respondent
Luis M. Martinez, Florence In Propria Persona
Vice Chief Judge Staring authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Eppich and Judge Brearcliffe concurred.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
STARING, Vice Chief Judge
¶1 Luis Martinez seeks review of the trial court's order summarily dismissing his successive petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. We will not disturb that ruling unless the court abused its discretion. See State v. Roseberry, 237 Ariz. 507, ¶ 7 (2015). Martinez has not met his burden of establishing such abuse here.
¶2 After a jury trial, Martinez was convicted of two counts of sexual conduct with a minor and sentenced to consecutive life terms with no possibility of release for thirty-five years. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on appeal. State v. Martinez, No. 2 CA-CR 2002-0088 (Ariz. App. Mar. 22, 2004) (mem. decision). Before this proceeding, he has sought and been denied post-conviction relief on numerous occasions; his most-recent attempt was denied in May 2022.
¶3 In July 2022, Martinez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus asserting the trial court lacked jurisdiction over him because a statute listed in his indictment, A.R.S. § 13-604, had been found unconstitutional. The court, correctly designating Martinez's filing as a successive petition for post-conviction relief, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.3(b), summarily dismissed the proceeding. This petition for review followed.
¶4 In his petition for review, Martinez identifies no error in the trial court's ruling and instead attempts to incorporate by reference his filing below. This procedure does not comply with our rules, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(d), and would warrant our summary denial of review, see Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.16(k) (appellate review under Rule 32.16 discretionary); State v. French, 198 Ariz. 119, ¶ 9 (App. 2000) (summarily rejecting claims not complying with rules governing form and content of petitions for review), disapproved on other grounds by Stewart v. Smith, 202 Ariz. 446, ¶ 10 (2002). Even had Martinez adequately developed any argument on review, however, he is not entitled to relief. See State v. Kasic, 247 Ariz. 562, n.1 (App. 2019) ("[W]e prefer to resolve cases on their merits . . . .").
¶5 Martinez argued below that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over him because his indictment included a reference to § 13-604, which he asserted had been held unconstitutional, citing a redacted 2013 trial court ruling. "Subject matter jurisdiction is 'the power to hear and determine cases of the general class to which the particular proceedings belong . . . .'" State v. Payne, 223 Ariz. 555, ¶ 6 (App. 2009) (alteration in original) (quoting In re Marriage of Dorman, 198 Ariz. 298, ¶ 7 (App. 2000)). Martinez's jurisdictional claim is based on a purportedly defective indictment. Even if the indictment were flawed, a deficient charging instrument does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction. See State v. Maldonado, 223 Ariz. 309, ¶ 13 (2010).
¶6 In any event, Martinez is not entitled to relief even if his claim implicated the trial court's jurisdiction and was raisable in a successive proceeding like this one. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(b), 32.2(b), 32.4(b)(3)(B). Martinez has not complied with Rule 32.2(b) by explaining why he did not raise this claim in a previous proceeding or in a timely manner. Thus, the court did not err in summarily dismissing his petition.
¶7 We grant review but deny relief.