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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

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

FILED 8-08-2023
STATE v. GODOY

Decision of the Court

2

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 
STATE v. GODOY

Decision of the Court

3

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.