Andrade-Martinez v. State

Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 604ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-13-272
Opinion Delivered October 23, 2013
SERGIO ANDRADE-MARTINEZ APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
APPELLANT [NO. CR-2012-677]
V. HONORABLE WILLIAM A. STOREY,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
What began as an attempted traffic stop by an observant officer noticing that
appellant Sergio Andrade-Martinez (“Martinez”) was not wearing his seatbelt, accelerated
to a standoff between Martinez and law enforcement that culminated with Martinez
shooting an officer. A Washington County jury convicted Martinez of eight counts of
attempted capital murder, two counts of aggravated assault, felon in possession of a firearm
during the commission of a felony, felon in possession of a firearm, possession of cocaine,
and simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm, sentencing him with eight firearm
enhancements to 149 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his convictions and argues that the circuit court erroneously denied
his motion to suppress. We find no error and affirm.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 604On March 24, 2012, Martinez eluded a traffic stop and, while being pursued by
law enforcement, drove to his apartment complex and entered his apartment. When
officers arrived at the complex, they were met by Martinez’s girlfriend who told them that
Martinez ran into the apartment drunk while exclaiming that police were chasing him.
The girlfriend led police back to the apartment, and upon realizing Martinez had a gun,
they retreated, and officers formed a perimeter around the building. The officers heard a
muffled gunshot and demanded that Martinez drop the gun and come out, to which he
replied, “I’m ready for you.”
Shortly thereafter, additional officers arrived on the scene and more gunshots were
heard. Martinez had a tactical advantage over the officers based on his elevated position in
a second floor apartment and the lighting of the complex. Martinez continued firing at the
officers. One officer was shot while attempting to take cover. Various officers described
Martinez aiming directly at them while firing his weapon. Martinez shot through the
window in a neighboring apartment, shattering glass and forcing police to instruct the
apartment’s residents to hide in their bathtub for the duration of the standoff. At one
point, an officer requested that Martinez end the standoff peacefully to which Martinez
shouted, “F—k you. The police need to leave. You need to kill me. I’m going to kill the
police.” After more than six hours, Martinez was eventually taken down by the
Emergency Response Team.
Following the arrest, law enforcement obtained a warrant and searched Martinez’s
apartment, finding a pistol. This first search was difficult as a result of the length of the
standoff, the late hour of the search, the lack of electricity in the building, and the tear gas
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 604deployed in the apartment during the negotiations. Officers knew it was apparent that a
second search would have to be conducted because the bullets found in the pistol did not
match the bullet fragment found in the shot officer’s leg. Police subsequently interviewed
Martinez, admittedly in violation of his Miranda rights, and he told them there was
another weapon in the apartment. The officers obtained a second warrant, adding the
statements from Martinez to the affidavit, conducted a second search, and located the
additional weapon and the cocaine.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Martinez argues that the circuit court should have granted his motions for directed
verdict because insufficient evidence supports his convictions on all charges. We treat a
motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Navarro v.
State, 371 Ark. 179, 264 S.W.3d 530 (2007). Our appellate courts have repeatedly held
that in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the
verdict. Id. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id.
Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with
reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to
speculation or conjecture. Id.
Based on a review of the evidence, there was clearly substantial evidence that
supported the jury’s decision on all of the charges without the jury having to resort to
conjecture or speculation. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s denial of the motions for
directed verdict.
Cite as 2013 Ark. App. 604II. Motion to Suppress
In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, we conduct a de novo
review based upon the totality of the circumstances, reversing only if the circuit court’s
ruling is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Porter v. State, 2010 Ark. App.
657, 379 S.W.3d 528. Because a determination of the preponderance of the evidence
depends heavily on questions of the weight and credibility of the testimony, we defer to
the superior position of the trial court on those questions. Miller v. State, 81 Ark. App.
401, 102 S.W.3d 896 (2003).
The circuit court determined that the officer who obtained the warrant acted in
good faith, intended to obtain the warrant prior to receiving the additional information
from Martinez, and did not make any intentional false statements. Additionally, the court
found that even if Martinez’s statements had been excised from the affidavit, there were
sufficient facts in the affidavit to establish probable cause for the second search.
Based on the totality of the circumstances, we cannot find that the circuit court’s
denial of the motion to suppress was against the preponderance of the evidence.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and PITTMAN, J., agree.
Wallace, Martin, Duke and Russell, PLLC, by: Valerie L. Goudie, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Valerie Glover Fortner, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for
appellee.