State v. Godoy

NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.
UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL
AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee,

v.

JOSE T. GODOY, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 22-0509
FILED 8-08-2023

Appeal from the Superior Court in Yuma County
No. S1400CR202000491
The Honorable Brandon S. Kinsey, Judge

AFFIRMED

COUNSEL

Arizona Attorney General’s Office, Tucson
By Jacob R. Lines
Counsel for Appellee

Yuma County Public Defender’s Office, Yuma
By Robert J. Trebilcock, Kaitlin Marie Amos
Counsel for Appellant
 STATE v. GODOY
Decision of the Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Judge Brian Y. Furuya delivered the decision of the Court, in which
Presiding Judge James B. Morse Jr. and Judge Cynthia J. Bailey joined.

F U R U Y A, Judge:

¶1 Jose T. Godoy appeals his 180-day sentence for one
misdemeanor count of threatening and intimidating, challenging the
superior court’s method of amending an earlier sentence imposed in this
case. Because Godoy’s appeal is moot, we affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 This is Godoy’s second appeal from a jury’s verdict finding
him guilty of two felonies and one misdemeanor. In the first appeal, we
affirmed the felony convictions and sentences, including 477 days’ credit
for time served. See State v. Godoy, 1 CA-CR 21-0379, 2022 WL 3652678 (Ariz.
App. Aug. 25, 2022) (mem. decision). However, we determined we lacked
jurisdiction to review his misdemeanor conviction because the superior
court did not enter judgment or impose a sentence for that conviction.

¶3 The superior court subsequently issued an Order Correcting
Clerical Error (“Order”) pursuant to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure
(“Rule”) 24.4 on October 17, 2022. The Order purported to enter judgment
on the misdemeanor conviction, amend Godoy’s sentence to include an
additional 180 days’ imprisonment to run concurrent with his two felony
convictions, and credit Godoy with 461 days’ time served. Godoy timely
appealed the superior court’s entry of this judgment and sentence, and we
have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes (“A.R.S.”) §§ 12-
120.21(A)(1), 13-4031, and 13-4033(A)(1).

DISCUSSION

¶4 “As a matter of judicial restraint, Arizona courts will not
‘issue advisory opinions [or] address moot cases.’” Workman v. Verde
Wellness Ctr., Inc., 240 Ariz. 597, 603 ¶ 17 (App. 2016) quoting Home Builders
Ass’n of Cent. Ariz. v. Kard, 219 Ariz. 374, 377 ¶ 9 (App. 2008). “[A] case
becomes moot if an event occurs that ends the underlying controversy and
transforms the litigation into ‘an abstract question which does not arise

2
 STATE v. GODOY
Decision of the Court

upon existing facts or rights.’” Id. quoting Contempo–Tempe Mobile Home
Owners Ass’n v. Steinert, 144 Ariz. 227, 229 (App. 1985).

¶5 On appeal, Godoy makes several arguments challenging the
Order. But we need not address these arguments because Godoy’s appeal
is moot.

¶6 The superior court purported to amend Godoy’s original
judgment to impose a sentence of 180 days’ imprisonment for his
misdemeanor conviction. As it did in its original sentencing document, the
court again credited Godoy with over 400 days’ time served at the time the
sentence was imposed. Therefore, Godoy had already served the entire 180-
day sentence at the time of sentencing.

¶7 As we have repeatedly held, when a defendant has served the
entirety of his sentence prior to consideration of that sentence on appeal,
the sentence’s validity is a moot issue. See, e.g., State v. Hartford, 145 Ariz.
403, 405 (App. 1985) (agreeing that “where a defendant is challenging only
the propriety or manner in which his sentence was imposed and not the
conviction itself, the validity of the imposition of the sentence becomes a
moot question once it has been fully served”), State v. Rodriguez, 200 Ariz.
105, 107 ¶ 7 (App. 2001) (finding an appellate issue moot because appellant
had already served the sentence challenged on appeal). Because Godoy had
served his sentence by the time it was imposed, his appeal is moot, and we
decline to address the merits of his arguments. Workman, 240 Ariz. at 603 ¶
17.

CONCLUSION

¶8 We affirm.

AMY M. WOOD • Clerk of the Court
FILED: JT

3