STATE OF ARIZONA v. MENDEZ, also known as VALENZUELA
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 29 2012 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. ENRIQUE GABRIELLE MENDEZ, also known as MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2012-0170-PR DEPARTMENT A MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2005127547001DT Honorable Brian K. Ishikawa,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 Melinda G. Valenzuela E C K E R S T R O M, Presiding Judge. Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent Florence In Propria Persona Petitioner Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela1 seeks review of the trial court s ¶1 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. ¶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) 1 Many of the pleadings in the record reflect Valenzuela s name as Enrique Mendez, a fact the trial court noted. 2 ( [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). /s/ Peter J. Eckerstrom PETER J. ECKERSTROM, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Joseph W. Howard JOSEPH W. HOWARD, Chief Judge /s/ J. William Brammer, Jr. J. WILLIAM BRAMMER, JR., 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.
