State of Idaho v. Rudolph Rilang

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) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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.

3