State v. Martin

Opinion

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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.

LELAND MARTIN, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 25-0402

FILED 08-19-2026

Appeal from the Superior Court in Coconino County No. CR 2024-00993

The Honorable Joshua Steinlage, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix By Jana Zinman Counsel for Appellee

Coconino County Legal Defender’s Office, Flagstaff By Joseph Adam Carver Counsel for Appellant

STATE v. MARTIN Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Vice Chief Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge D. Steven Williams and Judge Anni Hill Foster joined.

W E I N Z W E I G, Vice Chief Judge:

¶1 Leland Martin appeals his sentences following his convictions for four counts of aggravated driving under the influence (“DUI”). We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Early in the morning of May 28, 2022, a Coconino County deputy sheriff observed a car with a broken license plate light and pulled it over. The deputy approached and found Martin behind the wheel sweating, with bloodshot eyes and smelling of alcohol. The deputy administered field sobriety tests, which Martin failed, and Martin admitted drinking earlier in the evening. A blood draw confirmed Martin’s blood alcohol content was .182.

¶3 A jury convicted Martin of four counts of aggravated DUI, including (1) impaired to the slightest degree–suspended license, (2) alcohol concentration of .08 or more–suspended license, (3) impaired to the slightest degree–two violations within 84 months and (4) alcohol concentration of .08 or more–two violations within 84 months. The court excused the jury without further findings.

¶4 At sentencing, Martin’s probation officer testified about Martin’s past felony convictions and told the court Martin was on probation when he committed the offense. The superior court previously sentenced Martin to four years of probation on May 4, 2022, after he pleaded guilty to endangerment, extreme DUI and attempted failure to appear, and his probation began that same day. The presentence report and certified court records confirmed Martin was on probation on that date.

¶5 The superior court found by clear and convincing evidence that Martin was on probation at the time of the offense and had two historical felonies. Martin objected to neither finding. The court sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. Martin

3

STATE v. MARTIN Decision of the Court

timely appealed. We have jurisdiction. See Ariz. Const. art. 6, § 9; A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 Martin argues the jury, not the court, should have decided his probation status. Because he did not object in the superior court, Martin must show fundamental, prejudicial error to receive a new sentencing hearing. State v. Escalante, 245 Ariz. 135, 140, ¶ 12 (2018). “A defendant establishes fundamental error by showing that (1) the error went to the foundation of the case, (2) the error took from the defendant a right essential to his defense, or (3) the error was so egregious that he could not possibly have received a fair trial.” Id. at 142, ¶ 21. An error is prejudicial upon “a showing that without the error, a reasonable jury could have plausibly and intelligently returned a different verdict.” Id. at 144, ¶ 31. The defendant bears the burden of proving fundamental error. State v. Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567, ¶ 20 (2005).

¶7 The State appropriately concedes error. The jury, not the court, must find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that raises the mandatory minimum sentence. Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99, 114–15 (2013); A.R.S. § 13-708(C) (“A person who is convicted of any felony offense . . . that is committed while the person is on probation for a conviction of a felony offense . . . shall be sentenced to a term of not less than the presumptive sentence authorized for the offense.”).

¶8 The State insists, however, that Martin has shown no prejudice because a reasonable jury would have reached the same conclusion as the superior court. We agree. The probation officer testified that Martin was previously sentenced on May 4, 2022, and his four-year probation term began that same day. A deputy pulled Martin over on May 28, just 24 days into that four-year probation term. The presentence report and certified court records confirmed Martin was on probation. See State v. Gonzales, 233 Ariz. 455, 458, ¶ 11 (App. 2013) (“A defendant who fails to object to the contents of a presentence report has waived objections as to the accuracy and completeness of the report.”).

¶9 Martin disagrees. He argues the jury could have reached a different conclusion because his earlier sentence may have been modified before he committed the aggravated DUI. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.3(a) (the court may modify a sentence no later than 60 days after entry). He speculates that the certified records and the probation officer’s testimony do not “firmly rule[] out” a modification. He also points to timing: the

4

STATE v. MARTIN Decision of the Court

probation officer might have started supervising Martin in early July, while Martin was still supposed to be in jail—a gap he claims would show a modification.

¶10 We are not persuaded. Martin offers no facts to show the court modified his sentence, much less modified the sentence to end his probation within a month. Courts rarely modify sentences, and only when necessary to correct an unlawful sentence or one imposed in an unlawful manner. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 24.3(a). Martin does not allege the earlier conviction presented those issues. Speculation alone cannot establish prejudice under fundamental error review. See State v. Munninger, 213 Ariz. 393, 397, ¶ 14 (App. 2006). Martin has not shown a reasonable jury could have reached a different result. See Escalante, 245 Ariz. at 144, ¶ 31; Henderson, 210 Ariz. at 567, ¶ 20.

CONCLUSION

¶11 We affirm.

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