1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46134

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ARTURO GONZALEZ FLORES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: April 2, 2019

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. 

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion to correct an illegal 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; Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

LORELLO, Judge 

Arturo Gonzalez Flores appeals from the district court’s order denying his I.C.R. 35 

motion to correct illegal sentences. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Flores was charged with two felony counts of possession of a controlled substance, 

I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1)(F), and a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. A jury found 

Flores guilty of both charges as well as the enhancement. The district court imposed enhanced,

concurrent unified terms of fifteen years, with minimum periods of confinement of three years. 

Flores filed an I.C.R. 35 motion claiming his sentences are illegal. The district court denied 

Flores’s motion. Flores appeals. 
2

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

In an appeal from the denial of a motion under Rule 35 to correct an illegal sentence, the 

question of whether the sentence imposed is illegal is a question of law freely reviewable by the 

appellate court. State v. Josephson, 124 Idaho 286, 287, 858 P.2d 825, 826 (Ct. App. 1993). 

III.

ANALYSIS

Flores argues that his sentences are illegal for four reasons: (1) the district court lacked 

jurisdiction to punish him as a persistent violator based on two prior felony convictions because 

he believes the enhancement only applies upon a third felony conviction; (2) the enhancement 

provision of the Uniform Controlled Substance Act, I.C. § 37-2732(c), cannot be applied in 

conjunction with the persistent violator enhancement; (3) the persistent violator enhancement 

could not apply because the possession crimes he was charged with were not designated as 

felonies at the outset; and (4) I.C. § 19-2514 violates the due process and equal protection 

clauses of the United States and Idaho Constitutions. With respect to the first three arguments, 

Flores acknowledges that the law does not support his claims. I.C. § 19-2514 (“Any person 

convicted for the third time of the commission of a felony . . . shall be considered a persistent 

violator of the law, and on such third conviction shall be sentenced to a term . . . not less than 

five (5) years”); I.C. § 18-111 (defining felony as “a crime which is punishable with death or by 

imprisonment in the state prison”); I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1) (proscribing punishment for felony 

possession of a controlled substance as up to seven years in prison); see State v. Kerrigan, 143 

Idaho 185, 188, 141 P.3d 1054, 1057 (2006) (recognizing multiple enhancements are proper 

absent statutory language prohibiting such); State v. Bates, 63 Idaho 119, 121, 117 P.2d 281, 281

(1941) (interpreting I.C. § 19-2514). Thus, Flores’s first three arguments fail to show his 

sentences are illegal. 

With respect to his fourth argument--that I.C. § 19-2514 violates due process and equal 

protection--Flores acknowledges that the district court denied relief on this claim because Flores 

failed to cite any relevant legal authority to support this claim. Flores also fails to cite any such 

authority on appeal. A party waives an issue on appeal if either authority or argument is lacking. 
3

State v. Zichko, 129 Idaho 259, 263, 923 P.2d 966, 970 (1996). We therefore decline to consider 

the merits of Flores’s fourth argument regarding the legality of his sentences. 

IV.

CONCLUSION

Flores has failed to show that his sentences are illegal. Therefore, the district court’s 

order denying Flores’s I.C.R. 35 motion for correction of illegal sentences is affirmed. 

Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge HUSKEY, CONCUR.