Peo v. Martinez

── Peo v. Martinez ── Court: Colorado Court of Appeals Date: May 07, 2026 Category: General 24CA0891 Peo v Martinez 05-07-2026 COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No. 24CA0891 El Paso County District Court No. 23CR2102 Honorable William H. Moller, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mathew Sean Martinez, Defendant-Appellee. ORDER REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS Division IV Opinion by JUDGE BROWN Freyre and Schutz, JJ., concur NOT PUBLISHED PURSUANT TO C.A.R. 35(e) Announced May 7, 2026 Michael J. Allen, District Attorney, Doyle Baker, Senior Deputy District Attorney, Tanya A. Karimi, Deputy District Attorney, Isaiah Rose, Deputy District Attorney, Colorado Springs, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant Megan A. Ring, Colorado State Public Defender, Kira L. Suyeishi, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellee ¶1 The District Attorney for the Fourth Judicial District appeals the district court’s order dismissing the only charge against defendant, Mathew Sean Martinez, as a sanction for a discovery violation. We reverse and remand the case for further proceedings. I. Background ¶2 The prosecution charged Martinez with driving under the influence (DUI) – fourth or subsequent offense, alleging that he had been previously convicted of three prior alcohol-related driving offenses in the State of Texas. Martinez entered a plea of not guilty, and Judge Diana May, the presiding judge at the time, set a jury trial for January 2024. Martinez later asked to continue the trial, and the court granted his request, resetting the trial for April 1. ¶3 On the morning of trial on April 1, a new prosecutor was assigned to the case, which created a conflict for Judge May. She advised the parties that the case would be reassigned to a new judicial officer. ¶4 Later that day, the parties appeared before Judge William Moller. The parties addressed preliminary matters, including Martinez’s motion to exclude an investigator’s report that compared photographs he took of Martinez to certified records from the Texas 1  convictions and concluded that Martinez appeared to be the person in the Texas records. Martinez argued that the prosecution had failed to timely disclose the report because it had been provided to the defense only a week before trial. The court denied the motion, concluding that the prosecution had disclosed the report “as soon as practicable” and had “not failed to disclose materials required by [Crim. P.] 16.” ¶5 During argument concerning the photograph comparison report, the prosecutor mentioned that the investigator had also attempted to compare fingerprints he collected from Martinez with those contained in the Texas records. The prosecutor explained that the poor quality of the fingerprints in the Texas records prevented any meaningful comparison. Based on that information, defense counsel argued that another potential discovery violation had occurred. Specifically, counsel explained that the prosecution had failed to provide Martinez with the fingerprints collected by the investigator or any information related to the investigator’s unsuccessful attempt to compare them with the Texas records. And counsel argued that the undisclosed evidence was potentially exculpatory, noting that “if he’s not the same Martinez from Texas, 2  this goes from a . . . felony DUI down to a misdemeanor DUI. That is huge.” Counsel moved the court to dismiss the case as a remedy for the alleged Crim. P. 16 violation. ¶6 The court concluded that a “significant” discovery violation had occurred. It found that the undisclosed fingerprints and the investigator’s inability to compare them with