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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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, Respondent,

v.

TERESA MARIE HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0827 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2015-113289-001

The Honorable John R. Doody, Judge Pro Tempore

REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF GRANTED IN PART

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Teresa Marie Hollingsworth, Goodyear

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe delivered the decision of the Court, in 

which Judge Jennifer M. Perkins and Judge Peter B. Swann joined.

FILED 8-9-2018
STATE v. HOLLINGSWORTH

Decision of the Court

2

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Teresa Marie Hollingsworth petitions this Court for review 

from the dismissal of her petition for post-conviction relief. We have 

considered the petition and for the reasons stated, grant review and grant 

relief in part.

¶2 Hollingsworth originally pled guilty to two counts of 

aggravated assault that involved two different peace officers, class 5 

felonies, and one count of interfering with judicial proceedings (“IJP”), a 

class 1 misdemeanor, in CR 2015-113289-001. The court suspended 

Hollingsworth’s sentence, and she received probation on all counts, 

including a condition that required 30 days in jail with credit for time 

already served on one of the aggravated assault counts. The original 

confinement order issued on December 9, 2015, released her on only one 

aggravated assault count, and an amended confinement order was issued 

at 4:59 p.m. on December 14, 2015, ordering her released on the remaining 

counts. 

¶3 After violating probation, Hollingsworth was reinstated to 

intensive probation supervision, including a condition requiring 180 days 

in jail on one of the aggravated assault counts. She was given a terminal 

disposition on the IJP. Before completing her jail term, she returned to court 

and rejected probation. The court sentenced Hollingsworth to concurrent 

terms of two years’ imprisonment on each aggravated assault count and to 

time served on the IJP count. She was given 270 days’ presentence

incarceration credit on one aggravated assault count and 347 days’ credit 

on the other aggravated assault count. She signed her Notice of Rights of 

Review after Conviction and Procedure.1

¶4 Hollingsworth filed an untimely motion to correct her 

sentence, claiming that the credit for time served on her sentence was

 

1 The court sentenced her in CR 2014-151832 to a consecutive term of 

imprisonment. She refers to this sentence in her trial court pleadings, but 

the petition here was filed under CR 2015-113289-001, and she does not 

address any issues in her petition for review relating to the 2014 case. She 

does attach a Department of Corrections document to her petition, but the

document was not presented to the trial court and we decline to consider 

any argument relying on that document. See State v. Wagstaff, 161 Ariz. 66, 

71 (App. 1988). Therefore, any claims concerning her sentence in CR 2014-

151832 are waived. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.9(c)(4)(D).
STATE v. HOLLINGSWORTH

Decision of the Court

3

incorrect. The trial court, noting the untimely request under Arizona Rule

of Criminal Procedure 24.3, treated it as a Rule 32 proceeding, addressed 

the merits of her claim, and denied relief.

¶5 Hollingsworth then petitioned for review. She adds a claim of 

“double punishment” presumably under A.R.S. § 13–116. This argument 

was not raised before the trial court, and this Court will not consider 

meritorious issues not first presented to the trial court. See Wagstaff, 161 

Ariz. at 71. The claim is otherwise not timely, and is waived and without 

merit because each count involved a separate victim, which did not require 

double credit. See State v. White, 160 Ariz. 377, 381 (App. 1989) (holding that 

consecutive sentences, even from a single act, do not violate the statute). To 

the extent Hollingsworth otherwise claims an illegal sentence, she is 

untimely and precluded. See Ariz. R. Crim. P. 32.1(c), 32.2(b); State v. Shrum, 

220 Ariz. 115, 117–20 ¶¶ 3–23 (2009). Hollingsworth filed her Rule 32 

petition on November 28, 2017, which was more than 90 days after the court 

sentenced Hollingsworth on July 28, 2016.

¶6 Hollingsworth is correct, however, that the court erred in 

calculating her presentence incarceration credit. The record shows that the 

original order of confinement released her on only one of the two 

aggravated assault counts on December 9, 2015. An amended order 

released her on the remaining count and was issued at 4:59 p.m. on 

December 14, 2015. While technically released on one count, she spent 

additional days in jail because she had not been released on the other count. 

She was in fact incarcerated for an additional six days based upon the 

erroneous order. 

¶7 Hollingsworth’s claim would normally be moot because she 

has served her full sentence on these matters. “[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.” State v. Hartford, 145 Ariz. 403, 

405 (App. 1985). However, since she is now serving a consecutive term in 

CR 2014-151832, any upward adjustment in her credited time could affect

the time to be served on her remaining sentence. Had the trial court realized 

the error, it could have simply corrected the July 27, 2016 minute entry to 

reflect the error addressed in its amended order of confinement. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 24.4. 

¶8 Therefore, the trial court’s July 27, 2016 minute entry shall be 

corrected to reflect a total of 276 days’ and 353 days’ presentence

incarceration credit for the respective aggravated assault counts. See Ariz. 

R. Crim. P. 31.17(b) (2017) (“The Appellate Court may reverse, affirm, or 
STATE v. HOLLINGSWORTH

Decision of the Court

4

modify the action of the lower court and issue any necessary and 

appropriate orders.”).

¶9 Hollingsworth’s other claims regarding calculation of dates 

are without merit. As part of her reinstatement to probation, she was 

incarcerated for 78 days on one of the concurrent counts, but not the other 

count. As such, she has received the appropriate credit. The court was 

correct in not crediting her with the days on both counts, and the 

calculations were otherwise correct.

¶10 For the foregoing reasons, we grant review and grant relief in 

part.