Opinion
No. 2 CA-CR 2017-0366
09-12-2018
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. JAMEY L. MARTIN, Appellant.
COUNSEL Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel By Jana Zinman, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix Counsel for Appellee Rosemary Gordon Pánuco, Tucson Counsel for Appellant
THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(c)(1); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.19(e).
Appeal from the Superior Court in Pinal County
No. S1100CR201700273
The Honorable Dwight P. Callahan, Judge Pro Tempore
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General
Joseph T. Maziarz, Chief Counsel
By Jana Zinman, Assistant Attorney General, Phoenix
Counsel for Appellee
Rosemary Gordon Pánuco, Tucson
Counsel for Appellant
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Brearcliffe authored the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Staring and Chief Judge Eckerstrom concurred.
BREARCLIFFE, Judge:
¶1 In this appeal from his conviction for trafficking in stolen property, Jamey Martin argues there was insufficient evidence of his intent to support the conviction. We disagree, and therefore affirm.
¶2 We review the evidence presented at trial to determine whether it substantially supported the verdict, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to sustaining the conviction and resolving all reasonable inferences against Martin. See State v. Stroud, 209 Ariz. 410, ¶ 6 (2005). In September 2016, the victim discovered various items, including an orange Celestron telescope, missing from his workshop. Surveillance footage showed a man force open the door to the shop and remove items, placing them in a Mitsubishi. The victim later found the telescope offered for sale online and police officers tracked the posting to a home in Avondale.
¶3 Detectives went to the home and met Martin's girlfriend and his elderly father. Martin's girlfriend was initially not "forthcoming related to the telescope," but subsequently brought it out to the detective. When one of the detectives called Martin, Martin volunteered that he would not return to the house while the detective was there "[b]ecause of the telescope." Martin claimed to have gotten the telescope the week before, but the online posting had been made more than two weeks before. Investigators also determined that Martin's cell phone had been used to place a call that utilized a cellular tower 1.25 miles from the crime scene and that Martin's girlfriend drove a Mitsubishi consistent with that seen on the surveillance video. While in jail awaiting trial, Martin was recorded on a phone call telling his girlfriend that his cell phone "was GPSed and it got him in trouble."
¶4 Martin was charged with third-degree burglary and first-degree trafficking in stolen property. A jury was unable to reach a verdict on the burglary count and found Martin guilty of the lesser included offense
of second-degree trafficking. The trial court sentenced Martin to an enhanced, aggravated prison term of fifteen years.
¶5 Martin contends this evidence was insufficient to establish his intent, and the trial court therefore should have granted his motion for judgment of acquittal, made pursuant to Rule 20, Ariz. R. Crim. P. A judgment of acquittal should be granted only when "there is no substantial evidence to support a conviction." Ariz. R. Crim. P. 20(a)(1); accord State v. Mathers, 165 Ariz. 64, 67 (1990). "'Substantial evidence' is evidence that reasonable persons could accept as adequate and sufficient to support a conclusion of defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." State v. Jones, 125 Ariz. 417, 419 (1980). We "review de novo whether there is substantial evidence to support a conviction." State v. West, 226 Ariz. 559, ¶ 19 (2011).
¶6 To establish Martin's guilt the state was required to show he recklessly trafficked in the property of another that had been stolen. A.R.S. § 13-2307(A). "'Traffic' means to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of stolen property to another person, or to buy, receive, possess or obtain control of stolen property, with the intent to sell, transfer, distribute, dispense or otherwise dispose of the property to another person." A.R.S. § 13-2301(B)(3).
¶7 As detailed above, the evidence presented was sufficient to support Martin's guilt. Martin argues that certain evidence does not necessarily implicate him—for example that the Mitsubishi on the surveillance video was blue and the color of his girlfriend's Mitsubishi was not identified or that although the address associated with the online sale of the telescope was his, he was not there when the detective arrived. But when reasonable minds "may fairly differ as to whether certain evidence establishes a fact in issue, then such evidence must be considered as substantial." State v. Davolt, 207 Ariz. 191, ¶ 87 (2004) (quoting State v. Rodriguez, 186 Ariz. 240, 245 (1996)). Thus, substantial evidence supported the conviction.
¶8 Martin's conviction and sentence are affirmed.