1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 43426/43427

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FRANCISCO ARTEAGA LOPEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 422

Filed: March 8, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Canyon County. Hon. George A. Southworth, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of seven years, with a 

minimum period of confinement of three years, for felony driving under the 

influence of alcohol and ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four 

years, for aggravated driving under the influence of alcohol, affirmed; orders 

denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

In these cases, consolidated on appeal, Francisco Arteaga Lopez pled guilty to felony 

driving under the influence of alcohol, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005, and aggravated driving 

under the influence of alcohol, I.C. §§ 18-8004, 18-8006. In the first DUI case, the district court 

imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three 

years, and in the aggravated DUI case, the district court imposed a concurrent unified sentence of 

ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Lopez filed Idaho Criminal 
2

Rule 35 motions for reduction of his sentences in both cases, which the district court denied. 

Lopez appeals.

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 records in these cases, we 

cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Lopez’s Rule 35 motions. 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). In conducting our review of the grant 

or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for 

determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 

P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of 

the records, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Lopez’s judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s orders 

denying Lopez’s Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.