STATE OF ARIZONA v. MELINDA GABRIELLA 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 APR -9 2013 COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. MELINDA GABRIELLA VALENZUELA, Petitioner. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 CA-CR 2013-0051-PR DEPARTMENT B MEMORANDUM DECISION Not for Publication Rule 111, Rules of the Supreme Court PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MARICOPA COUNTY Cause No. CR2005127547001DT Honorable Brian K. Ishikawa, Judge REVIEW DENIED William G. Montgomery, Maricopa County Attorney By Gerald R. Grant Melinda Gabriella Valenzuela Phoenix Attorneys for Respondent Florence In Propria Persona V à S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge. Petitioner Melinda Valenzuela1 seeks review of the trial court s order ¶1 denying her ninth petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. 1 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. 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). /s/ Garye L. Vásquez GARYE L. Và SQUEZ, Presiding Judge CONCURRING: /s/ Philip G. Espinosa PHILIP G. ESPINOSA, Judge /s/ Michael Miller MICHAEL MILLER, Judge 2
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.
