State of Idaho v. Sofia Maria Romero

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52500

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 21, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SOFIA MARIA ROMERO, ) 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. Gene A. Petty, District Judge.

Appeal from judgments of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of 180 days
for misdemeanor injury to a child and disturbing the peace, dismissed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Sofia Maria Romero entered Alford1 pleas to amended charges of misdemeanor injury to a
child, I.C. § 18-1501(2), and disturbing the peace, I.C. § 18-6409. The district court sentenced
Romero to concurrent, unified terms of 180 days in jail. Mindful that she has fully served her
sentences, Romero appeals and argues that her sentences are excessive.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the defendant lacks
a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982); Bradshaw
v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432, 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991). Even where a question is moot, there are
three exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) when there is the possibility of collateral legal
consequences imposed on the person raising the issue; (2) when the challenged conduct is likely
to evade judicial review and thus is capable of repetition; and (3) when an otherwise moot issue
raises concerns of substantial public interest. State v. Barclay, 149 Idaho 6, 8, 232 P.3d 327, 329
(2010). The relief Romero has requested on appeal cannot be granted because she has been already
served her sentences. Therefore, any judicial relief from this Court would have no effect on either
party. See id.
Therefore, the appeal from Romero’s judgments of conviction and sentences are dismissed.

2