State of Idaho v. Leland Jack Dewolfe

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51230

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 5, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LELAND JACK DEWOLFE, ) 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. James S. Cawthon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with four years
determinate for domestic battery and a consecutive indeterminate sentence of three
years for intimidating, impeding, influencing, or preventing the attendance of a
witness, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Leland Jack DeWolfe pled guilty to one count of felony domestic violence or battery, Idaho
Code §§ 18-918(2), 18-903(a) and one count of intimidating, impeding, influencing, or preventing
the attendance of a witness, I.C. § 18-2604. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges
were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of ten years with four years determinate
for felony domestic violence or battery and a consecutive, indeterminate term of three years for
intimidating, impeding, influencing, or preventing the attendance of a witness. DeWolfe filed an

1
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1 DeWolfe appeals asserting that
the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive 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.
Therefore, DeWolfe’s judgment of conviction and sentence, is affirmed.

1
DeWolfe states the issue on appeal “Is Mr. DeWolfe’s sentence excessive?” In argument
DeWolfe states “Mr. DeWolfe contends that his 13-year prison term, with four years fixed, without
retained jurisdiction, is excessively harsh in light of the facts of his case, including those presented
with his Criminal Rule 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence.” DeWolfe does not present the
standard of review for the denial of a Rule 35 motion or argument that the district court abused its
discretion in denying the Rule 35 motion. Consequently, we will neither review the district court’s
denial of DeWolfe’s Rule 35 motion nor consider any information submitted therewith in
reviewing the sentence imposed.
2