State v. Martinez

── State v. Martinez ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: May 11, 2026 Category: General 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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.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 showin