STATE OF ARIZONA v. SHAUDY ALVEAR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION TWO THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent, v. SHAUDY ONASIS ALVEAR, Petitioner. No. 2 CA-CR 2016-0116-PR Filed June 29, 2016 THIS DECISION DOES NOT CREATE LEGAL PRECEDENT AND MAY NOT BE CITED FOR PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY. See Ariz. R. Sup. Ct. 111(a)(3), (c); Ariz. R. Crim. P. 31.17(b), (e), 31.24. Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Santa Cruz County No. S1200CR201300144 The Honorable Anna M. Montoya-Paez, Judge REVIEW DENIED COUNSEL George E. Silva, Santa Cruz County Attorney By Kimberly J. Hunley, Deputy County Attorney, Nogales Counsel for Respondent Law Offices of Thomas E. Higgins, P.L.L.C., Tucson By Thomas E. Higgins Counsel for Petitioner STATE v. ALVEAR Decision Order of the Court DECISION ORDER Presiding Judge Vásquez authored the decision order of the Court, in which Chief Judge Eckerstrom and Judge Miller concurred. V Á S Q U E Z, Presiding Judge: ¶1 Petitioner Shaudy Alvear seeks review of the trial court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant to Rule 32, Ariz. R. Crim. P. “We will not disturb a trial court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief absent a clear abuse of discretion.” State v. Swoopes, 216 Ariz. 390, ¶ 4, 166 P.3d 945, 948 (App. 2007). Because we conclude Alvear’s claim is moot, we deny review. ¶2 Pursuant to a plea agreement, Alvear was convicted of attempted unlawful use of a means of transportation. The trial court suspended the imposition of sentence and placed Alvear on a threeyear term of probation. Alvear thereafter admitted having violated the terms of his probation, and the court imposed an aggravated, two-year term of imprisonment. ¶3 Alvear initiated a proceeding for post-conviction relief, arguing his sentence was unlawful because the trial court had not found any enumerated aggravating factors, had “double counted [his] probationary status,” and had not “properly consider[ed] the mitigating factors” he presented. The court summarily denied relief. ¶4 On review, Alvear repeats his claims made below. This court, however, ordered Alvear and the state to file memoranda addressing whether the claims were moot. The state argued Alvear’s claims were moot because he completed his sentence for the offense on March 25, 2016, days before he filed his petition for review. Alvear, in contrast, asserted he was “still in custody with his maximum date of release for this offense being July 7, 2010.” The Arizona Department of Corrections indicates that although Alvear’s 2 STATE v. ALVEAR Decision Order of the Court “Flat Maximum” date for this offense is July 7, 2016, his sentence expired on March 25, 2016. The record before us does not show that the trial court imposed a flat-time sentence. ¶5 Alvear has not asserted that his sentencing claims can survive based on a term of community supervision, see A.R.S. § 411604.07(D) (prisoner who reaches “sentence expiration date shall be released to begin the prisoner’s term of community supervision imposed by the court”); State v. Cowles, 207 Ariz. 8, ¶ 9, 82 P.3d 369, 371 (App. 2004) (“Community supervision is not equivalent to imprisonment.”), nor has he raised any other argument that his sentences otherwise impact his current incarceration, which appears to be based on a consecutive sentence. We therefore conclude his sentencing claims are moot. See State v. Hartford, 145 Ariz. 403, 405, 701 P.2d 1211, 1213 (App. 1985); see also Cardoso v. Soldo, 230 Ariz. 614, ¶ 5, 277 P.3d 811, 814 (App. 2012) (“[G]enerally, we will dismiss an appeal as moot when our action as a reviewing court will have no effect on the parties.”). ¶6 We therefore deny the petition for review. 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.
