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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

MARTIN ARTURO MERAZ-OCHOA, 

Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 19-0208

 1 CA-CR 19-0209

(Consolidated)

Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2013-447183-001

 CR2018-001864-001

The Honorable Warren J. Granville, Judge Retired

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Phoenix

By Michael O’Toole

Counsel for Appellee

Maricopa County Public Defender’s Office, Phoenix

By Joel M. Glynn

Counsel for Appellant

FILED 7-30-2020
STATE v. MERAZ-OCHOA

Decision of the Court

2

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, 

in which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined.

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

¶1 Martin Arturo Meraz-Ochoa appeals the revocation of his 

supervised probation and his convictions and sentences for Theft of Means 

of Transportation and Possession of a Manipulation Key. Meraz-Ochoa’s 

counsel avows he searched the record and found no arguable, nonfrivolous question of law. Defense counsel then filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and State v. Leon, 104 Ariz. 297 

(1969), asking this court to search the record for fundamental error. MerazOchoa had the opportunity to file a supplemental brief but did not. We 

affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 Meraz-Ochoa was sentenced in 2014 to three years’ probation 

for Aggravated Driving or Actual Physical Control While Under the 

Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Drugs. The conditions of probation 

required Meraz-Ochoa to “maintain a crime-free lifestyle, by obeying all 

laws and not engaging or participating in any criminal activity.”

¶3 Within the probation period, a police officer spotted MerazOchoa driving a stolen car in downtown Phoenix and followed to a 

residence where Meraz-Ochoa parked and exited the vehicle. Meraz-Ochoa 

was arrested with a “manipulation key” in his possession. He claimed “he 

was at a liquor store when some dude rolled up with [the] vehicle and gave 

it to him.” Meraz-Ochoa was later indicted on two felony counts of theft of 

means of transportation, A.R.S. § 13-1814(A)(5), and possession of burglary 

tools, specifically a manipulation key, A.R.S. § 13-1505(A)(2), -(B)(2). His 

probation officer also moved to revoke probation, alleging that MerazOchoa violated the terms of his probation.

¶4 Meraz-Ochoa was tried before an eight-member jury. The 

State called the arresting officer and a witness who saw and identified 

Meraz-Ochoa as the individual driving the stolen vehicle from its original 

parked location. Meraz-Ochoa called his fiancé and a handyman. The jury 
STATE v. MERAZ-OCHOA

Decision of the Court

3

convicted Meraz-Ochoa on both felony counts. His probation officer 

testified in the aggravation phase. The jury found that Meraz-Ochoa 

committed both offenses on probation. 

¶5 The superior court enhanced Meraz-Ochoa’s sentence based 

on four prior felony convictions. Meraz-Ochoa was sentenced to the 

presumptive term of 11.25 years’ incarceration for Theft of Means of 

Transportation and the presumptive term of 3.75 years’ incarceration for 

Possession of a Manipulation Key, each running concurrently. The court 

also sentenced him to one year of incarceration for the probation violation, 

with 336 days of presentence incarceration credit, to run consecutively with 

the other sentences. Meraz-Ochoa timely appealed. We have jurisdiction 

under Article 6, Section 9, of the Arizona Constitution, and A.R.S. §§ 12-

120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and -4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶6 We have read and considered counsel’s brief and have 

reviewed the record for reversible error. See Leon, 104 Ariz. at 300. We find 

none. 

¶7 Meraz-Ochoa was represented by counsel at all stages of the 

proceedings against him. Meraz-Ochoa was present at all stages of the 

proceedings, except (1) a pretrial hearing at which he thought his 

attendance was not required, but the superior court reset the hearing for a 

later time, and (2) when defense counsel waived his presence during the 

aggravation phase. The record reflects that the superior court afforded 

Meraz-Ochoa all his constitutional and statutory rights, and that the 

proceedings were conducted in accordance with the Arizona Rules of 

Criminal Procedure. The court conducted appropriate pretrial hearings, 

and the evidence presented at trial and summarized above was sufficient 

to support the jury’s verdicts. The sentences fall within the range 

prescribed by law, with sufficient credit given for presentence 

incarceration. 

CONCLUSION

¶8 Meraz-Ochoa’s convictions and sentences are affirmed. 

Counsel’s obligations in this appeal will end once Meraz-Ochoa is informed 

of the outcome and his future options, unless counsel finds an issue 

appropriate for submission to the Arizona Supreme Court by petition for 

review. See State v. Shattuck, 140 Ariz. 582, 584-85 (1984). Meraz-Ochoa has 
STATE v. MERAZ-OCHOA

Decision of the Court

4

30 days from the date of this decision to proceed with a pro se motion for 

reconsideration or petition for review.