Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lansing, Judge
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 393
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order denying Rule 35 motion, affirmed.
Roberto Cuevas-Hernandez appeals from the district court's denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
In January 2003, following a jury trial, Cuevas-Hernandez was convicted of two counts of trafficking in cocaine, Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(2), and two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(4). The district court imposed consecutive unified sentences of fifteen years with three-year determinate terms for the counts of trafficking in cocaine, and consecutive unified sentences of fifteen years with five-year determinate terms for the counts of trafficking in methamphetamine, resulting in an aggregate sentence of sixty years with a sixteen-year determinate term. This Court affirmed the judgment of conviction in State v. Cuevas-Hernandez, 140 Idaho 373, 93 P.3d 704 (Ct. App. 2004). In 2012, Cuevas-Hernandez
filed a motion for relief from an illegal sentence under Rule 35(a). The district court denied the motion without a hearing, and Cuevas-Hernandez appeals.
Cuevas-Hernandez first asserts that the district court erred by denying his motion without a hearing. Idaho Criminal Rule 35(a) provides, "The court may correct a sentence that is illegal from the face of the record at any time." A sentence is "illegal" within the meaning of Rule 35 only if it is in excess of statutory limits or otherwise contrary to applicable law. State v. Peterson, 148 Idaho 610, 613, 226 P.3d 552, 555 (Ct. App. 2010); State v. Lee, 116 Idaho 515, 516, 777 P.2d 737, 738 (Ct. App. 1989). The Idaho Supreme Court has narrowly interpreted the term "illegal sentence" under Rule 35 as "a sentence that is illegal on the face of the record, i.e., does not involve significant questions of fact or require an evidentiary hearing." State v. Clements, 148 Idaho 82, 86, 218 P.3d 1143, 1147 ...