State of Idaho v. Alyssa Rios

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52142

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 2, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ALYSSA RIOS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended, unified sentence of five years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years, for malicious injury to property,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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; LORELLO, Judge
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Alyssa Rios was found guilty of malicious injury to property, Idaho Code § 18-7001(2).1
The district court sentenced Rios to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of
confinement of three years. However, the district court suspended Rios’s sentence and placed her
on probation for three years. Rios appeals, arguing that her sentence is excessive; more
specifically, that her underlying sentence is excessive.

1
Rios was also found guilty of unlawful entry; however, she does not challenge that
conviction or sentence on appeal.

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). 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, Rios’s judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

2