1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42315/42403

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALICIA VEGA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 491

Filed: May 15, 2015

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Juneal C. Kerrick, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period 

of confinement of five years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed; 

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 42403, Alicia Vega pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. 

Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005. The district court sentenced Vega to a unified term of five 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, retained jurisdiction, and Vega was 

subsequently placed on probation for a period of five years. Approximately four years later,

Vega was arrested for felony driving under the influence in Docket No. 42315. Vega pled guilty 

to the new felony driving under the influence charge and admitted to violating her probation in 

Docket No. 42403. The district court revoked Vega’s probation and ordered her underlying 

sentence executed without reduction. In Docket No. 42315, the district court imposed a unified 
2

sentence of ten years with five years determinate to run concurrently with Vega’s sentence in 

Docket No. 42403. Vega filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion in both cases, which the 

district court denied.

The district court granted Vega’s petition for post-conviction relief and re-entered the 

judgments of conviction and the orders denying Vega’s Rule 35 motions in both cases. Vega 

timely appealed from the district court’s re-entered judgments and orders denying her Rule 35 

motions. Vega appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an 

excessive sentence in Docket No. 42315 and also by denying her Rule 35 motion in Docket No. 

42403.

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 Vega’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, Vega’s judgment of conviction and sentence in Docket No. 42315, and the 

district court’s order denying Vega’s Rule 35 motion in Docket No. 42403, are affirmed.