Following a jury trial on a 49-count indictment, Paulino Gonzalez Martinez was convicted of 28 counts, including ten counts of false imprisonment,1 six counts of armed robbery,2 four counts of burglary,3 three counts of aggravated assault,4 two counts of criminal attempt to commit armed robbery,5 one count of criminal attempt to commit burglary,6 one count of kidnapping,7 and one count of sexual battery.8 The jury could not reach a verdict as to 18 counts, and acquitted Martinez of the remaining three counts. Martinez’s co-defendant, Javier Alonso Quiroz, was charged under the same indictment with 36 counts. He was convicted of 23 of those charges, including ten counts of false imprisonment, six counts of armed robbery, three counts of burglary, two counts of aggravated assault, and a single count each of kidnapping and sexual battery. The jury could not reach a verdict as to five counts and acquitted Quiroz of the remaining eight counts.
In Case No. A10A1904, Martinez appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial, asserting: 1 that because the only evidence supporting his conviction on counts 19 through 43 of the indictment was the uncorroborated testimony of a single co-conspirator, that evidence was insufficient as a matter of law; 2 that his prosecution for the crimes charged in counts 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, counts 23 through 25, counts 29 through 33, counts 39 through 43, and count 46 of the indictment was barred by the applicable statute of limitations; and 3 that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on the statute of limitations issue. In Case No. A10A1905, Quiroz appeals the denial of his new trial motion, alleging: 1 that because the only evidence supporting his conviction on counts 20 through 25 of the indictment was the uncorroborated testimony of a single co-conspirator, that evidence was insufficient as a matter of law; 2 that his prosecution for the crimes charged in count 19, counts 22 through 26, counts 28 through 35, and counts 38 through 40 of the indictment was barred by the applicable statute of limitations; 3 that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce certain evidence to impeach the testimony given by one or more of his alleged accomplices; 4 that the trial court erred in failing to give his requested jury instruction on alibi; and 5 that the trial court erred in refusing to grant him a remedy for the State’s failure to identify which of its witnesses it intended to call to rebut Quiroz’s alibi evidence.
