1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39148

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RODOLFO DOMINGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 485A

Filed: August 10, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

AMENDED OPINION THE 

COURT’S PRIOR OPINION 

DATED MAY 23, 2012 IS 

HEREBY AMENDED

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three years, for domestic violence in the presence of a 

child, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, 

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Rodolfo Dominguez entered an Alford1 plea to domestic violence in the presence of a 

child. Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a), 18-918(2),2 18-918(4). The district court sentenced Dominguez

 

1

 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 

2 Incorrectly cited in the district court’s judgment as 18-912(2).
2

to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. 

Dominguez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Dominguez

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 record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Dominguez’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). 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 record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Dominguez’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s 

order denying Dominguez’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.