State v. Custodio, 48581

Elias Manuel Custodio was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, aggravated battery, and burglary and originally received aggregate concurrent sentences totaling 30 years with 15 years determinate.
On direct appeal the court held certain enhancements were improper; on remand some sentences were resentenced (including unified sentences for manslaughter and aggravated battery).
In 2020 Custodio filed a pro se I.C.R. 35 motion claiming his sentences were illegal, primarily challenging the Commission of Pardons and Parole’s denial of parole and asserting the Unified Sentencing Act causes racial disparities in parole outcomes.
The State conceded Custodio’s 15-year determinate burglary term exceeded the statutory minimum and was illegal on its face.
The district court corrected the burglary sentence to ten years determinate but ruled it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 35 to review the Commission’s parole denial and that requests for discretionary sentence reductions were untimely under Rule 35(b). Custodio appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the burglary determinate term was illegal on the face of the record	Custodio: sentence illegal under the Unified Sentencing Act	State: the burglary determinate exceeded statutory minimum (conceded)	Court corrected burglary determinate to 10 years (illegal on face)
Whether Rule 35 allows judicial review of Commission parole denials or a facial challenge to the Act based on alleged racial disparity	Custodio: parole denials and systemic racial disparity make his sentence illegal and actionable under Rule 35	State: Rule 35 is not the proper vehicle; courts lack jurisdiction to intrude on parole discretion	Court held it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 35 to review the Commission’s parole decision; Rule 35 not proper vehicle
Whether Custodio’s requests for discretionary reductions were timely under Rule 35(b)	Custodio sought discretionary reductions of other sentences	State: such requests are untimely under Rule 35(b)	Court held requests for discretionary reductions were untimely

State v. Josephson, 124 Idaho 286, 858 P.2d 825 (Ct. App. 1993) (in an appeal from denial of Rule 35 motion, sentence illegality is a question of law freely reviewable)
State v. Lute, 150 Idaho 837, 252 P.3d 1255 (2011) (jurisdiction is a question of law reviewed de novo)
State v. Clements, 148 Idaho 82, 218 P.3d 1143 (2009) (defines "illegal sentence" for Rule 35(a) as narrow category)
State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007) (courts may not intrude on the parole commission’s discretion)
Brandt v. State, 118 Idaho 350, 796 P.2d 1023 (1990) (cautions against judicial review of rehabilitative progress and encroaching on parole/pardoning authority)
State v. Alvarado, 481 P.3d 737 (Idaho 2021) (reiterates that courts cannot intrude on the Commission’s parole discretion)