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 UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE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

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS

D IVISION O NE

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 10-17-2017STATE v. VALLE Decision of the Court

2 H O W E , Judge: ¶1 Isaac Steven Valle petitions this C ourt for review from the summary dismissal of his successive petition fo r 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 murd er
. This C ourt 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) r equir es 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 A mendment ’ s prohibition on ‘ cruel and un usual 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 poss ibility 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 obtain s release from prison, the prospective application of A.R.S. § 13

– 716 would be an unconstitut ional 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 possibil ity of release for an offense that the person committed as a juvenile is eligi ble for parole upon completion of the minimum sentence, regardless when the person committed the offense

.

1 Miller wa s 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 th ey 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 Supre me 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, w e grant review but deny relief.