From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Mariscal

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mar 1, 2019
Docket No. 46270 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2019)

Opinion

Docket No. 46270

03-01-2019

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO R. VALADEZ MARISCAL, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years with fifteen years determinate, for conspiracy to traffic heroin, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Alejandro R. Valadez Mariscal pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic heroin, Idaho Code §§ 37-2732B(A)(6)(C), 18-1701, 37-2732B(b). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years with fifteen years determinate. Valadez Mariscal filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Valadez Mariscal appeals, contending that his indeterminate term is excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Valadez Mariscal's Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Valadez Mariscal's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Valadez Mariscal's judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Valadez Mariscal's Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Mariscal

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Mar 1, 2019
Docket No. 46270 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2019)
Case details for

State v. Mariscal

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ALEJANDRO R. VALADEZ MARISCAL…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Mar 1, 2019

Citations

Docket No. 46270 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2019)