STATE OF ARIZONA v. PATRICK DOWLING
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 APR 17 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. PATRICK DOWLING, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0069-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2003020209001DT Honorable Andrew G. Klein, Judge REVIEW DENIED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Linda Van Brakel Patrick Dowling Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent Buckeye In Propria Persona K E L L Y, Judge. ¶1 Petitioner Patrick Dowling seeks review of the trial court s order denying what the court characterized as a petition for post-conviction relief filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. Because Dowling has been released from custody, his petition is dismissed as moot. ¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Dowling was convicted in 2005 of sexual assault and attempted sexual assault. The trial court sentenced him to an aggravated, 8.5year prison term for sexual assault and, for attempted sexual assault, suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Dowling on lifetime probation. He filed a notice of post-conviction relief, and his appointed counsel advised the court she had reviewed the record and was unable to find any colorable claims for relief to raise on [Dowling] s behalf. Dowling did not timely file a pro per petition for post-conviction relief, and the court dismissed the proceeding. In 2007, Dowling filed a pro per petition for postconviction relief claiming he was entitled to relief under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004), and that his counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise that claim. The court summarily dismissed his petition, concluding his claim was precluded pursuant to Rule 32.2(a). Although Dowling sought review of that ruling, Division One of this court denied review. ¶3 In 2010, Dowling filed in the trial court a Motion for immediate release from confinement arguing that the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADOC) did not release him in accordance with the release date calculated by the ADOC timecomputation unit. The court denied that motion in January 2011. Dowling then filed a Motion for R.24.4 Clarification of Court[ ]s Order in Change of Plea, requesting the court clarify that he is eligible for earned early-release credits and should be released from custody. The court, characterizing that motion as a successive petition for postconviction relief, summarily dismissed the motion, concluding Dowling had not raised a 2 cognizable claim. The court also denied Dowling s subsequent motion for rehearing and request for appointment of counsel. ¶4 Dowling s petition for review, which he characterizes as a petition for special action, was transferred to this court for all further proceedings. Dowling asserts the trial court erred in characterizing his motion as a petition for post-conviction relief instead of a motion pursuant to Rule 24.4, Ariz. R. Crim. P., and asks this court to remand the matter to the trial court for it to consider his motion. But Dowling has been released from custody during the pendency of the review. His claim is therefore moot, and we deny review and dismiss his 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). Dowling s request for attorney fees and costs is denied. /s/ Virginia C. Kelly VIRGINIA C. KELLY, Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, 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.
