State v. Tellez, 51456

Eric Talamantes Tellez was charged with multiple counts of lewd conduct and sexual abuse of a child under sixteen in Idaho.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to one count of each, and other charges were dismissed.
Before sentencing, an addendum was added to the presentence investigation report (PSI) regarding multiple victims, but Talamantes moved to strike it, arguing it provided no new information.
The trial court granted the motion orally, agreeing not to consider the addendum, but did not enter a written order striking it from the PSI or physically attach such order per requirements.
Talamantes appealed, arguing failure to properly redact the PSI and that he should have been placed on probation instead of receiving a ten-year concurrent sentence.

Issue	Talamantes's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court erred by not redlining the PSI addendum after granting the motion to strike	The court should have redlined or annotated the PSI to show the addendum was stricken	The district court was not obligated to redline the PSI	The court finds remand necessary so the record reflects the addendum was stricken as ordered
Whether the district court abused its discretion by imposing a prison sentence instead of probation	The district court should have placed him on probation	Sentencing is at the trial court's discretion and was reasonable here	The sentencing decision was within the court's discretion

State v. Ogden, 171 Idaho 258 (Idaho 2022) (abuse of discretion found if the court fails to redline the PSI as agreed)
State v. Greer, 171 Idaho 555 (Idaho 2023) (corrections to the PSI must be reflected in the record)
State v. Dills, Idaho , 561 P.3d 478 (Idaho 2024) (PSI must show corrections physically attached to become effective)