State of Idaho v. Susan Ruth Hoffman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51375

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 4, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SUSAN RUTH HOFFMAN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Javier L. Gabiola, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of three years, for intimidating, influencing, impeding, or deterring
a witness from testifying; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, 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
Susan Ruth Hoffman pled guilty to intimidating, influencing, impeding, or deterring a
witness from testifying, Idaho Code § 18-2604. In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges
were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of three years. Hoffman filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which
the district court denied. Hoffman appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion
by imposing an excessive sentence and denying her Rule 35 motion.

1
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 and
need not be repeated here. 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). That discretion includes
the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation. I.C. § 19-
2601(3), (4); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002); State v. Lee,
117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that
the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation was
not appropriate. 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 Hoffman’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 Hoffman’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Hoffman’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Hoffman’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2