State of Idaho v. Andrea Joyce Alvarez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50954

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 8, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANDREA JOYCE ALVAREZ, ) 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. Darla Williamson, Senior District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and reduced unified sentence of five years and ten months,
with a minimum period of confinement of one year and ten months, for grand theft,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Andrea Joyce Alvarez entered an Alford1 plea to grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1),
18-2407(1)(b), 18-2409. The district court sentenced Alvarez to a unified term of six years with
two years determinate and retained jurisdiction. At the retained jurisdiction review hearing,
Alvarez requested her sentence be reduced pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35. The district court
relinquished jurisdiction and executed Alvarez’s reduced unified sentence of five years and ten

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
1
months with one year and ten months determinate. Alvarez appeals, arguing that the district court
should have further reduced her sentence.
A motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal 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). In conducting our review of the
grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used
for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740
P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion in failing to further reduce Alvarez’s sentence. Therefore,
the district court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction and reducing Alvarez’s sentence is affirmed.

2