1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46270

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ALEJANDRO R. VALADEZ 

MARISCAL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: March 1, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years with fifteen years

determinate, for conspiracy to traffic heroin, affirmed; order denying Idaho 

Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 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; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Alejandro R. Valadez Mariscal pled guilty to conspiracy to traffic heroin, Idaho 

Code §§ 37-2732B(A)(6)(C), 18-1701, 37-2732B(b). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional 

charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years with 

fifteen years determinate. Valadez Mariscal filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the 

district court denied. Valadez Mariscal appeals, contending that his indeterminate term is 

excessive.
2

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 Valadez Mariscal’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). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Valadez Mariscal’s Rule 35 motion, we 

conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Valadez Mariscal’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district 

court’s order denying Valadez Mariscal’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.