Opinion
2 CA-CR 2012-0170-PR
06-29-2012
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ENRIQUE GABRIELLE MENDEZ, also known as MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Petitioner.
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Adam Susser Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent Melinda G. Valenzuela Florence In Propria Persona
NOTICE: THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS AUTHORIZED BY APPLICABLE RULES. See Ariz. R. Supreme Court 111(c); ARCAP 28(c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.24
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court
PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY
Cause No. CR2005127547001DT
Honorable Brian K. Ishikawa, Judge
REVIEW DENIED
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney
By Adam Susser
Phoenix
Attorneys for Respondent
Melinda G. Valenzuela
Florence
In Propria Persona
ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge.
¶1 Petitioner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela seeks review of the trial court's order dismissing what the court characterized as her seventh petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. The sole issue Valenzuela raises on review is that she is being held beyond the expiration of her sentence. Because Valenzuela has been released from custody, her petition is dismissed as moot.
Many of the pleadings in the record reflect Valenzuela's name as Enrique Mendez, a fact the trial court noted.
¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Valenzuela was convicted in 2006 of theft of means of transportation. The trial court sentenced her to a presumptive, 6.5-year prison term. She filed a notice of post-conviction relief, and appointed counsel advised the court she had reviewed the record and was "unable to find any colorable claims for relief to raise on the defendant's behalf." Valenzuela subsequently filed numerous pro se petitions for post-conviction relief, all of which the court dismissed. In fact, Valenzuela also has filed at least three additional petitions since the court dismissed the underlying petition.
¶3 In light of the fact that Valenzuela has been released from custody during the pendency of the review of the underlying petition, her claim that she is being held in custody beyond her release date is moot, and we thus deny review and dismiss her petition. Cf. State v. Hartford, 145 Ariz. 403, 405, 701 P.2d 1211, 1213 (App. 1985) ("[W]hen an entire sentence has been served prior to consideration of that sole issue on appeal, the validity of its imposition is a moot question.") (emphasis omitted).
_________________
PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING:
_________________
JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge
_________________
J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., Judge