State v. Martin

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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

2

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

3

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

4