STATE OF ARIZONA v. DAVID GLEN MILLS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 FILED BY CLERK JUN 28 2011 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. DAVID GLEN MILLS, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2011-0087-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PIMA COUNTY Cause Nos. CR50324, CR50983 Honorable Howard Hantman, Judge PETITION FOR REVIEW DISMISSED David Glen Mills K E L L Y, Judge. Mesa In Propria Persona ¶1 In 1996, petitioner David Mills pleaded guilty and was convicted of three counts of sexual exploitation of a minor under the age of eighteen. The trial court sentenced him to a partially aggravated prison term of eight years on one count and to consecutive, presumptive terms of five years on each of the remaining counts. Mills has previously sought and been denied post-conviction relief. See, e.g., State v. Mills, No. 2 CA-CR 2010-0102-PR, ¶ 2 & n.1 (memorandum decision filed June 29, 2010) (listing previous post-conviction relief proceedings). ¶2 In September 2010, Mills filed a notice of and petition for post-conviction relief pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P., in which he argued the Arizona Department of Corrections had miscalculated his community-supervision release date, resulting in an illegal extension of his sentence. It does not appear the trial court has ruled upon Mills s claim. ¶3 Mills has filed what he calls a petition for review and seems to be seeking review of an order the trial court entered on March 3, 2011, in response to a letter Mills s brother, Daniel, had sent to the court. In his letter, Daniel had asked the court to release Mills from community supervision as a matter of compassion, and the court denied this request. There is nothing in the court s order, however, that suggests it was a ruling on Mills s Rule 32 petition. ¶4 Because the trial court has not yet rendered a decision on Mills s petition for post-conviction relief, his petition for review is premature. There is nothing for this court to review. See generally Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c) (aggrieved party may petition for 2 review after the final decision of the trial court on the petition for post-conviction relief ). Because there is no Rule 32 ruling before us, we dismiss Mills s petition for review. /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. VÃ¡squez GARYE L. VÃ SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Judge 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.