State of Idaho v. David Kent Sherill

Idaho Court of Appeals

State of Idaho v. David Kent Sherill

DecidedAugust 11, 2023

Docket50235

StatusUnpublished

This text of State of Idaho v. David Kent Sherill (State of Idaho v. David Kent Sherill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State of Idaho v. David Kent Sherill, (Idaho Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50235

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: August 11, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DAVID KENT SHERILL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) )

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville Count County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge.

Order Denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM David Kent Sherill entered an Alford1 plea to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of eleven and one-half years. Sherill filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion. Following a hearing, the district court denied Sherill’s I.C.R. 35 motion. Sherill appeals. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 1 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting an I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Sherill’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Sherill’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50235

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: August 11, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DAVID KENT SHERILL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) )

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville Count County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge.

Order Denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM David Kent Sherill entered an Alford1 plea to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of eleven and one-half years. Sherill filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion. Following a hearing, the district court denied Sherill’s I.C.R. 35 motion. Sherill appeals. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d

1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 1 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting an I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Sherill’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Sherill’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

State of Idaho v. David Kent Sherill, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-idaho-v-david-kent-sherill-idahoctapp-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack