State of Idaho v. Ricardo Sanguino-Tellez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52252

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 2, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RICARDO SANGUINO-TELLEZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Ricardo Sanguino-Tellez was found guilty of possession of a controlled substance (Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c)(1)).1 The district court sentenced Sanguino-Tellez to a unified term of seven
years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Sanguino-Tellez filed an Idaho
Criminal Rule 35 motion.2 Sanguino-Tellez appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive. He

1
Sanguino-Tellez was also found guilty of driving without privileges; however, he does not
challenge this conviction or sentence on appeal.
2
On appeal, Sanguino-Tellez does not raise any issues related to his Rule 35.

1
asserts the district court should have placed him on probation, imposed a lesser sentence and
retained jurisdiction, or imposed a two-year determinate term.
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 and
need not be repeated here. 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). That discretion includes
the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation and whether
to retain jurisdiction. I.C. § 19-2601(3), (4); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635
(Ct. App. 2002); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The
record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and
determined that probation or retaining jurisdiction were not appropriate.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Sanguino-Tellez’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2