1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 48911

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

AMBER DAWN ORTIZ ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Filed: May 31, 2022
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Ned C. Williamson, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction for forgery, affirmed

. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; John C. McKinney , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

_______ _________________________________________ HUSKEY, Judge
Amber Dawn Ortiz appeals from her judgment of conviction for forgery. O r tiz asserts the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was the person who committed the forgery and, th us , was insufficient to support he r conviction. T here is
substantial evidence to support the jury ’s find i ng that Ortiz committed the forgery
, and w e affirm Ortiz’s judgment of conviction.
I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Ortiz was charged with one count of forgery in violation of Idaho Code § 18

- 3601

. The State alleged Ortiz passed or attempted to pass an altered check to the City of Burley ; Ortiz pleaded not guilty
, and the case proceeded to trial.2

At trial, Father Mark Uhlenkott testified that on December 12, 2019, he wrote a check for $50.00 to the City of Burley. However, t he check
, admitted as an exhibit at trial , was in the amount of $250.00. It was dated December 12, 2019, was on behalf of T he Roman Catholic Diocese of
Boise , and was signed by Uhlenkott. Uhlenkott testified that he wrote the check for $50.00 and that the writing on the check f or “two hundred” was not his handwriting. Uhlenkott testified that he wrote the check to help a woman named Amber. Uhlenkott
identified Ortiz as the woman for whom he wrote the check . During cross

- examination, Uhlenkott
stated that he remembered enough about writing the check to know that Ortiz was “probably” the
woman he wrote the check for and when questioned further, he stat ed that he was eighty percent
sure that Ortiz was the woman for whom he wrote the check. Araceli Arreguin, a clerk for the C ity of Burley, testified that she previously worked at a bank where she received training on how to recognize fraudulent checks. Arreguin said the training she received while working at the bank led her to make specific mental notes about the
individual w ho gave her the altered check. Arreguin testified that she received the check at issue as payment at Burley City Hall on December 12, 2019

. Arreguin said tha t when she first saw the
check
, the handwriting stood out to her; Arreguin explained that the fir st portion of the amount
that said “Two hundred” was written in differe nt handwriting than the second portion that said “Fifty .” She said that the numerical amount appeared to have been written more than once , as if
there w as an error in the initial numbe r and the number had been rewritten

. Arreguin identified Ortiz as the woman she received the check from and said Ortiz had

use d the check to make a payment on another customer’s account. Arreguin said Ortiz did not provide her name or any form of identif ication. Arreguin testified that Ortiz asked to make a payment on another customer’s account and asked for change because the amount due was less
than the a mount of the check. Arreguin told Ortiz that the city does not give change back on
checks and Orti z said “okay” and left. Arreguin said she was “ [a] bout 96 percent sure” Ortiz was the person who handed her the check. During cross

- examination, Ortiz’s counsel asked Arreguin: “How sure would you be if [Ortiz] was sitting out there instead of up here n ext to me?” and Arreguin responded “ [ a ] bout 80 percent.” Arreguin agreed that Ortiz being presen t at t he defense
table made it easier for Arreguin to identify her ; Arreguin stated that she could “ distinguish [ Ortiz’s ] eyes .”3

Ortiz did not testify and did not call any witnesses in her defense

. The jury returned a guilty verdict. T he district court sentenced Ortiz to a unified term of incarceration of six years, with two years determinate, suspended the sentence
, and placed Ortiz on three years of supervi sed probation. Ortiz timely appeals.
I I.
ANALYSIS
Ortiz a sserts the State did not present sufficient evidence to support her conviction for forgery. Specifically, Ortiz argues th e re was in sufficient evidence for a jury t o find , beyond a
reasonable doubt, that she was the individual who passed or attempted to pass the altered check because the eyewitness identifications were highly suggestive, generally insufficient, and
unreliable

. The State asserts the evidence was sufficient to prove Ortiz’s iden tity beyond a
reasonable doubt and, as such, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction

. Appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited in scope. A finding of guilt will not be overturned on appeal where there is substantia l evidence upon which a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the prosecution sustained its burden of proving the essential elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Herrera

- Brito , 131 Idaho 383, 385, 957 P.2d 1099, 1101 (Ct. App. 1 998); State v. Knutson , 121 Idaho 101, 104, 822 P.2d 998, 1001 (Ct. App. 1991). We will not substitute our view for that of the trier of fact as to the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given to the testimony, and the reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence.
Knutson , 121 Idaho at 104, 822 P.2d at 1001; State v. Decker , 108 Idaho 683, 684, 701 P.2d 303, 304 (Ct. App. 1985). Moreover, we will consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Herrera

- Brito , 131 Idaho at 385, 957 P.2d at 1101; Knutson , 121 Idaho at 104, 822
P.2d at 1001. First, Ortiz asserts Uhlenkott ’s and Arreguin’s in

- court identifications were so highly suggestive that they cannot provide the necessary quantum of evidence to sustain her convic tion. Ortiz argues the in

- court identifications are tantamount to single subject show

- ups, which have been recognized as i nherently suspicious

. Ortiz did not object to the in

- court identifications below
, and we decline to consider this argument for the f irst time on appeal. State v. Fodge , 121 Idaho 192, 195, 824 P.2d 123, 126 (1992). Second, Ortiz asserts Uhlenkott ’s and Arreguin’s testimony was insufficient to prove identity beyond a reasonable doubt. Ortiz contends that Arreguin’s testimony that she would have4

been eighty percent certain of Ortiz’s identity had Ortiz not been seated at the defense table indicates that Arreguin was improperly inferring guilt from the fact that Ortiz was the defendant. We disagree. Arreguin’s interaction with Ortiz oc curred at a close distance

-- across a counter at the clerk’s office. Arreguin testified that at the time she received the altered check, sh e made mental notes about the individual who gave her the check and she identi fied Ortiz as that
individual. Ortiz’s presence at the defense table increased Arreguin’s level of certainty because Arreguin testified she could distinguish Ortiz’s eyes , implying that it was the closer distance, not Ortiz’ s presence at defense table that aided Arre g uin’s identificatio n

. Nothing in the record supports Ortiz’s assertion that Arreguin inferred Ortiz was guilty simply because she was the
defe ndant. Finally, Ortiz argues Uhlenkott’s testimony that he was eighty percent certain Ortiz was
the individual he wrote the check for is not sufficiently reliable to prove Ortiz’s identity beyond a
reasonable doubt because “ twenty percent uncertainty necessarily leaves a reasonable doubt. ” This assertion is misplaced, as t here is no specific quantum of evidence that equates to reaso nable doubt. Furthermore, the State did not rely solely on Uhlenkott’s testimony to prove that Ortiz was the
individual who passed or attempted to pass the altered check

. As noted above, the State also presented the testimony of Arreguin. Taken together and view ed in the light most favorable to the
State , the re is substantial evidence to support the jury’s finding that Ortiz was the individual who passed or attempted to pass the altered check. Therefor e, there is substantial evidence to support Ortiz’s conviction for forgery

. III

. CONCLUSION
Substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict t hat Ortiz committed forgery. Accordingly, Orti z’s judgment of conviction is affirmed. Judge GRATTON and Judge BRAILSFORD CONCUR

.