Opinion
2 CA-CR 2013-0051-PR
04-09-2013
THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Petitioner.
William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Gerald R. Grant Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent Melinda Gabriella 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Not for Publication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 Gerald R. Grant
Phoenix
Attorneys for Respondent
Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela Florence
In Propria Persona
VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Melinda Valenzuela seeks review of the trial court's order denying her ninth petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Because Valenzuela has been released from custody, her petition is dismissed as moot. ¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement Valenzuela was convicted of one count of theft of a means of transportation, and the trial court imposed an enhanced, presumptive 6.5-year term of imprisonment. Valenzuela sought and was denied post-conviction relief eight times between 2006 and 2011. In the petition currently being reviewed, Valenzuela claimed only that she was being held in custody after her sentence had expired. The trial court summarily dismissed the petition. ¶3 On review, Valenzuela again argues only that she is entitled to release because her sentence has expired. In light of the fact that Valenzuela has been released from custody during the pendency of the petition for review, her claim that she is being held in custody beyond her release date is moot. 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).
The trial court granted Valenzuela's request to amend the caption in this matter from the name under which she had been convicted—Enrique Gabrielle Mendez—to Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela.
_______________
GARYE L. VÁSQUEZ, Presiding Judge
CONCURRING: _______________
PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge
_______________
MICHAEL MILLER, Judge