State of Idaho v. Cyrus Hanson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50468

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 4, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CYRUS HANSON, ) 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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent terms of life, with a minimum period of
confinement of fifteen years, for two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under
sixteen, sexual exploitation of a child, and rape, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35
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; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Cyrus Hanson pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen,
Idaho Code § 18-1508; one count of sexual exploitation of a child, I.C. § 18-1507(2)(c); and one
count of rape, I.C. § 18-1601. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court imposed concurrent terms of life with fifteen years determinate for two counts of
lewd conduct with a minor, thirty years with fifteen years determinate for sexual exploitation of a
child, and life with fifteen years determinate for rape. Hanson filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35

1
motion, which the district court denied. Hanson appeals asserting that the district court abused
its discretion by imposing excessive sentences and by denying his I.C.R. 35 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.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Hanson’s Rule 35 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 Hanson’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Hanson’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Hanson’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2