State of Idaho v. Tarisa Deeann Rodriguez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51323

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 7, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TARISA DEEANN RODRIGUEZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Elmore County. Hon. Theodore J. Fleming, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for accessory to attempted murder in the first degree,
affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Tarisa Deeann Rodriguez pled guilty to felony accessory to attempted murder in the first
degree, Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, 18-4003(a), 18-206. The district court imposed a unified term of
five years with two years determinate. Rodriguez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which
the district court denied. Rodriguez appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion
by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying her Rule 35 motion.
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

1
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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same
conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App.
2020). 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 Rodriguez’s Rule 35 motion.
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). 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 Rodriguez’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has
been shown.
Therefore, Rodriguez’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Rodriguez’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2