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UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL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

ISAAC STEVEN VALLE, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 15-0539 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR 95-10873

The Honorable Bruce R. Cohen, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED AND RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Isaac Steven Valle, Florence

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

which Judge Peter B. Swann and Judge Maria Elena Cruz joined.

FILED 10-17-2017
STATE v. VALLE

Decision of the Court

2

H O W E, Judge:

¶1 Isaac Steven Valle petitions this Court for review from the 

summary dismissal of his successive petition for post-conviction relief. We 

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

review but deny relief.

¶2 A jury found Valle guilty of premeditated first-degree murder 

and two counts of attempted first-degree murder. Valle committed the 

offenses in 1995 when he was a juvenile. The trial court sentenced Valle to 

concurrent terms of 10.5 years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder 

counts and a consecutive term of life with the possibility of release after 25 

years for first-degree murder. This Court affirmed Valle’s convictions and 

sentences as modified on direct appeal. State v. Valle, 1 CA-CR 97-0106

(Ariz. App. Feb. 24, 1998) (mem. decision).

¶3 Valle argues that the Supreme Court opinion in Miller v. 

Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) requires that the trial court vacate his sentence 

for murder. In Miller, the Supreme Court held “that mandatory life 

[sentences] without parole for those under the age of 18 at the time of their 

crimes violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on ‘cruel and unusual 

punishments.’” Miller, 567 U.S. at 465 (emphasis added).

1 Miller further held 

that a trial court may sentence a juvenile offender convicted of murder to 

life imprisonment without the possibility of parole so long as the court 

considers “how children are different, and how those differences counsel 

against irrevocably sentencing them to a lifetime in prison.” Id. at 480. We 

deny relief on this issue because Miller has no application here. Valle did 

not receive a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole and 

Miller does not otherwise have any effect on Valle’s life sentence with a 

possibility of release.

¶4 Valle further argues that if he ever obtains release from 

prison, the prospective application of A.R.S. § 13–716 would be an 

unconstitutional application of an ex-post facto law. In 2014, the legislature 

enacted A.R.S. § 13–716 and amended A.R.S. § 41–1604.09(I). 2014 Ariz. 

Sess. Laws, ch. 156, § 2. Sections 13–716 and 41–1604.09(I) provide that a 

person sentenced to life with the possibility of release for an offense that the 

person committed as a juvenile is eligible for parole upon completion of the 

minimum sentence, regardless when the person committed the offense. 

 

1 Miller was a significant change in the law and is retroactive. 

Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 736 (2016); State v. Valencia, 241 Ariz. 

206, 207 ¶ 1 (2016). 
STATE v. VALLE

Decision of the Court

3

A.R.S. § 13–716 (2014); A.R.S. § 41–1604.09(I) (2014). The portion of A.R.S. 

§ 13–716 that Valle challenges is the portion that provides a person 

sentenced to life with a possibility of release who is later granted parole 

must remain on parole for the remainder of the person’s life and be subject 

to revocation. See A.R.S. § 13–716. We deny review of this issue because it 

is not ripe. See Velasco v. Mallory, 5 Ariz. App. 406, 410–11 (1967) (“We will 

not render advisory opinions anticipative of troubles which do not exist; 

may never exist; and the precise form of which, should they ever arise, we 

cannot predict.”). Valle has several years remaining on his minimum 

25-year imprisonment term and whether he will ever be placed on parole is 

a matter of speculation. 

¶5 Finally, Valle argues that his sentence for murder violated the 

Supreme Court’s determination that the existence of any fact, other than a 

prior conviction, that increases a criminal penalty beyond the prescribed 

statutory maximum must be determined by a jury beyond a reasonable 

doubt. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). We deny relief 

because Apprendi has no retroactive application to cases that have become 

final. State v. Sepulveda, 201 Ariz. 158, 160–61 ¶ 8 (App. 2001). 

¶6 Accordingly, we grant review but deny relief.