State v. Cody D. Herrera
Background
- Defendant Cody D. Herrera pleaded guilty to statutory rape for sexual contact with a 14‑year‑old and was sentenced to a unified 15‑year term (5 years determinate) with retained jurisdiction.
- At sentencing the State recommended a unified 5‑year sentence with 3 years indeterminate; Herrera asked for probation and expressed remorse.
- The court considered the presentence investigation report (PSI), a psychosexual evaluation (PSE), victim’s mother’s statement, statutory sentencing factors, and court experience.
- The PSE characterized Herrera’s offending as "opportunistic" and assessed moderate risk, but recited a sexual history of 34–36 partners including contacts with persons as young as 14 and numerous 16–17‑year‑olds.
- The victim’s mother described Herrera as a predator who targeted young girls and referenced prior protection orders; the PSI also noted a separate 17‑year‑old victim had filed a protection order while this case was pending.
- Herrera appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by (1) discounting the PSE in favor of the mother’s statements, (2) improperly relying on the number of sexual partners, and (3) failing to consider mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Herrera) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused discretion by discounting PSE conclusions | Court may reconcile conflicting information and rely on sources it finds credible | PSE labeled Herrera "opportunistic"; court improperly favored victim’s mother and disregarded PSE | No abuse: court compared conflicting sources and questioned whether PSE classification fit other evidence; did not outright reject PSE or label Herrera a "predator" |
| Whether court improperly considered Herrera’s number of sexual partners | Sexual history showing many contacts (including minors) is relevant to risk and sentencing | Number of partners irrelevant; record lacks proof partners were minors and court’s morality comments were improper | No abuse: PSE and PSI showed numerous contacts with 16–17‑year‑olds and at least one 14‑year‑old; history of minor victims was a legitimate sentencing concern |
| Whether court failed to consider mitigating factors (age, immaturity, remorse, lack of prior felonies, treatment, support) | Court considered PSI, PSE, counsel’s arguments, Herrera’s allocution and mitigation evidence | Court ignored or gave insufficient weight to mitigating evidence | No abuse: record shows court heard and considered all mitigating evidence before sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114 (court of appeals decision cited for sentencing review standards)
- State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447 (court of appeals decision on sentencing discretion)
- State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565 (court of appeals decision on sentencing review)
- State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722 (Idaho Supreme Court decision on reviewing entire sentence)
- State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598 (Idaho Supreme Court decision describing multi‑tiered discretionary review)