L.Ed.2d 133 (1994), which held that “where the defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and state law prohibits the defendant’s release on parole, due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible.” 512 U.S. at 156, 114 S.Ct. 2187. As explained, Arizona law does not make Benson ineligible for parole. A.R.S. § 13-751 (A). Consequently, the trial court did not err by refusing to instruct the jury in accordance with Simmons. See State v. Hardy, 230 Ariz. 281, 293 ¶ 58, 283 P.3d 12, 24 (2012), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 935, 184 L.Ed.2d 732 (2013) (“Simmons instructions are not required when ‘[n]o state law ... prohibits the defendant’s] release on parole.’” (alterations in original)); Cruz, 218 Ariz. at 160 ¶42, 181 P.3d at 207 (<HOLDING>); see also State v. Hargrave, 225 Ariz. 1,
holding that graham which prohibited the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide does not apply to a lengthy termofyears sentence that might constitute a de facto life sentence holding defendant not entitled to simmons instruction because no state law would have prohibited cruzs release on parole after serving twentyfive years had he been given a life sentence holding that habeas petition challenging the state boards decision to defer his scheduled parole release date was rendered moot by prisoners release from custody on parole and subsequent incarceration for violating his parole holding that trial courts instruction implying that the jury had to be unanimous in imposing a sentence of life imprisonment violated defendants constitutional rights because this instruction could have been clearerand should have been holding that there was no legal right to court review of parole board decision because there is no legal right to release on parole