State v. Mendoza, 151 Idaho 623

Mendoza convicted of forgery with a persistent violator enhancement after counterfeit bills were involved at a store.
Police recovered two counterfeit $100 bills; Mendoza claimed they were brought by a friend but later admitted misrepresenting the source.
Mendoza testified she found $240 in a store restroom in an envelope labeled Peggy and later admitted lying about the source of the money.
District court sentenced Mendoza to a unified 15-year term with 2 years determinate.
Mendoza challenged prosecutorial conduct and the sentence, and moved for Rule 35 reduction of sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument	Mendoza claims fundamental error from prosecutor's comments.	Mendoza asserts statements mischaracterized evidence and implied lying.	Not fundamental error; comments were customary credibility argument and consistent with evidence.
Prosecutor's rebuttal on missing envelope and daughter's testimony shifted burden	Mendoza argues improper burden shifting.	Commentary targeted evidence or lack thereof, not Fifth Amendment violation.	Not impermissible; did not shift the burden or violate rights.
Excessive sentence for forgery with persistent violator enhancement	Sentence was too harsh given mitigating factors.	Mitigating factors were ignored.	No abuse of discretion; sentence reasonable considering offense and offender characteristics.
District court's denial of Rule 35 motion	New information warranted leniency.	No new information established excessive sentence.	No abuse of discretion; Rule 35 denial affirmed.

Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (U.S. 2000) (closing remarks on credibility; how defendant prepared testimony allowed)
Hodges v. State, 105 Idaho 588 (Idaho 1983) (comments on failure to testify allowed if not directed at Fifth Amendment rights)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (Idaho 2010) (fundamental error doctrine and review standards for unwaived prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Gross, 146 Idaho 15, 189 P.3d 477 (Ct.App.2008) (closing argument purpose and admissibility of argument)