State of Idaho v. Luis Antonio Cruz Ferra

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52960

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 24, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LUIS ANTONIO CRUZ FERRA, ) 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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of five years, for attempted strangulation and consecutive,
indeterminate term of five years, for intimidating a witness, affirmed; order denying
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Luis Antonio Cruz Ferra entered an Alford 1 plea to attempted strangulation (Idaho Code
§ 18-923) and pled guilty to intimidating a witness (I.C. § 18-2604). 2 In exchange for his guilty
pleas, additional charges were dismissed and the State agreed not to file a persistent violator

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
2
Cruz Ferra also pled guilty to two counts of misdemeanor violation of a no-contact order;
however, he does not challenge these convictions or sentences on appeal.

1
enhancement. The district court sentenced Cruz Ferra to a unified term of fifteen years, with a
minimum period of confinement of five years, for attempted strangulation and a consecutive,
indeterminate term of five years for intimidating a witness. Cruz Ferra filed an Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Cruz Ferra appeals, arguing that his sentences are
excessive and that the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.
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). 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 Cruz Ferra’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 or
additional information submitted with Cruz Ferra’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Cruz Ferra’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Cruz Ferra’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2