State of Idaho v. Rudolph Rilang

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51426

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: September 9, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED RUDOLPH RILANG, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Nancy A. Baskin, District Judge; Hon. Richard D. Greenwood, Senior District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years with a minimum period of confinement of five years for lewd conduct with minor child under sixteen, affirmed; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35(b) motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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 Rudolph Rilang pled guilty to lewd conduct with minor child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of twenty years with five years determinate and retained jurisdiction. After the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Rilang filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b) motion, which the district court denied. Rilang appeals asserting that the

1 district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence, by relinquishing jurisdiction, and by denying his I.C.R. 35(b) motion. 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. 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. The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Hernandez, 122 Idaho 227, 230, 832 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 786 P.2d 594 (Ct. App. 1990); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Therefore, a decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman, 120 Idaho 466, 816 P.2d 1023 (Ct. App. 1991). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Rilang’s Rule 35(b) 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 Rilang’s Rule 35(b) motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

2 Therefore, Rilang’s judgment of conviction and sentence, the district court’s order relinquishing jurisdiction, and the district court’s order denying Rilang’s Rule 35(b) motion, are affirmed.