Court Opinion

ID: 9961676
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-19 15:05:27.6685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:21:20.971695
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                   Docket Nos. 50389 & 50390

 STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                 )        Filed: April 19, 2024
         Plaintiff-Respondent,                   )
                                                 )        Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
 v.                                              )
                                                 )        THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
 TONYA SUE ARNOLD,                               )        OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                 )        BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
         Defendant-Appellant.                    )
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
       County. Hon. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge.

       Appeal from judgments of conviction, dismissed; orders denying Idaho Criminal
       Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

       Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

HUSKEY, Judge
       Tonya Sue Arnold appeals from her judgments of conviction for possession of a controlled
substance and forgery. Arnold argues the district court abused its discretion by failing to redline
portions of her presentence investigation report (PSI) or failing to include a redlined version in the
appellate record, and by denying her Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion. Because Arnold failed to
timely appeal from her judgment of conviction, this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider her
redlining argument on appeal. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Arnold’s
Rule 35 motions. The orders denying Arnold’s Rule 35 motions are affirmed.
                                                     I.
                      FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In Docket No. 50389, the State charged Arnold by information with three counts of felony
possession of a controlled substance, one count of misdemeanor possession of a controlled

                                                     1
substance, and one count of misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia. In Docket No. 50390,
the State charged Arnold by information with four counts of forgery. Pursuant to a plea agreement,
Arnold pleaded guilty to one count of felony possession of a controlled substance in the first case
and one count of forgery in the second case, and the State dismissed the remaining charges in both
cases. The district court consolidated the cases and sentenced Arnold to concurrent unified
sentences of seven years, with two years determinate. Arnold filed a Rule 35 motion for a
reduction of sentence in each case, which the district court denied. Arnold timely appealed.
                                                II.
                                   STANDARD OF REVIEW
       Whether a court lacks jurisdiction is a question of law that may be raised at any time, and
over which appellate courts exercise free review. State v. Shutz, 143 Idaho 200, 202, 141 P.3d
1069, 1071 (2006). A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 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).
                                                III.
                                           ANALYSIS
       First, Arnold argues the district court abused its discretion by failing to ensure a corrected
PSI was included as part of the appellate record and transmitted to the Idaho Department of
Correction (IDOC) after the district court accepted Arnold’s corrections at the sentencing hearing.
The State argues this Court lacks jurisdiction to address Arnold’s redlining claim because Arnold
failed to timely appeal from her judgments of conviction. We agree with the State.
       An appellant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives the appellate court of
jurisdiction and requires dismissal of the appeal. I.A.R. 21; State v. Shultz, 147 Idaho 675, 677,
214 P.3d 661, 663 (Ct. App. 2009). A convicted criminal defendant generally must file a notice
of appeal within forty-two days after the judgment of conviction is filed. I.A.R. 14(a); Shultz, 147
Idaho at 677, 214 P.3d at 663. Idaho Appellate Rule 14(a) provides the basis for altering the timing
of an appeal, stating:
       The time for an appeal from any criminal judgment, order or sentence in an action
       is terminated by the filing of a motion within fourteen (14) days of the entry of the
       judgment which, if granted, could affect the judgment, order or sentence in the
       action, in which case the appeal period for the judgment and sentence commences
       to run upon the date of the clerk’s filing stamp on the order deciding such motion.

                                                 2
Thus, while the filing of a Rule 35 motion can toll the period for filing an appeal, to do so it must
be filed within fourteen days of the judgment of conviction. See State v. Payan, 128 Idaho 866,
868, 920 P.2d 82, 84 (Ct. App. 1996). In this case, Arnold’s judgments of conviction were filed
August 26, 2022. Therefore, Arnold’s appeal, filed December 28, 2022, is untimely as to the
judgments of conviction because Arnold failed to file her appeal within forty-two days of the filing
of her judgments of conviction. I.A.R. 14(a); Shultz, 147 Idaho at 677, 214 P.3d at 663.
Additionally, since Arnold’s Rule 35 motions were filed November 29, 2022, Arnold’s time to
appeal was not tolled because her Rule 35 motions were not filed within fourteen days of the filing
of her judgments of conviction. See Payan, 128 Idaho at 868, 920 P.2d at 84. Because this Court
lacks jurisdiction to consider Arnold’s PSI redlining argument on appeal, we cannot address it.
       As a separate matter, in her opening brief, appellate counsel fails to acknowledge that the
notice of appeal was not timely from the judgment of conviction and, thus, the redlining claim is
not properly before this Court. Counsel similarly fails to acknowledge I.A.R. 14(a) and 21 and
relevant adverse authority discussed in this opinion. Counsel is an experienced appellate attorney
and was, or should have been, aware that the notice of appeal is untimely as to the claim regarding
the PSI and that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the issue. Nonetheless, she presents the
substantive argument as though it is properly before this Court, when it is not.
       Even after the State demonstrated that this Court has no jurisdiction to review the claim,
appellate counsel neither filed a reply brief addressing why the issue was properly presented nor a
letter withdrawing the issue. Counsel has ethical obligations and nothing in the attorney-client
relationship prevents counsel from upholding those obligations. Arguing an issue over which this
Court has no jurisdiction and failing to acknowledge such, after it being pointed out, is not
consistent with those obligations.
       Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Arnold’s Rule 35 motions. 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 records,
including any new information submitted with Arnold’s Rule 35 motions, we conclude no abuse
of discretion has been shown.

                                                 3
                                               IV.
                                        CONCLUSION
       Because Arnold failed to timely appeal from her judgments of conviction, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to consider her PSI redlining argument, thus, that portion of the notice of appeal is
dismissed. The district court did not error in denying her Rule 35 motions. Therefore, the orders
denying Arnold’s Rule 35 motions are affirmed.
       Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge LORELLO, CONCUR.

                                                4