State of Idaho v. Angel Velasco Gonzalez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50633

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 8, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANGEL VELASCO GONZALEZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Brent L. Whiting, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Angel Velasco Gonzalez pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen years
of age, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty-two years,
with a minimum period of incarceration of eight years. Gonzalez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35
motion and subsequently filed an amended I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Gonzalez appeals.
Pertinent to this appeal, I.C.R. 35(b) provides that a defendant can file a motion to reduce
a sentence “within 120 days of the entry of the judgment imposing sentence.” A district court
loses jurisdiction to rule on such a motion if it does not act within a “reasonable time” after the
120 day-period expires. State v. Chapman, 121 Idaho 351, 353, 825 P.2d 74, 76 (1992); State v.

1
Tranmer, 135 Idaho 614, 616, 21 P.3d 936, 938 (Ct. App. 2001). While Gonzalez’s initial
I.C.R. 35 was timely filed, his amended I.C.R. 35(b) motion was filed 152 days after the judgment
of conviction was entered and the district court ruled on it 266 days after the judgment of
conviction was entered. Gonzalez does not argue the delay was reasonable nor does the record
establish a legitimate cause for the delay.
Ruling on an I.C.R. 35 motion almost nine months after the judgment of conviction was
entered was not reasonable and consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the
original or amended I.C.R. 35 motion. The denial of Gonzalez’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.

2