State of Idaho v. Garrett Charles Mallery

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49984

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 26, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED GARRETT CHARLES MALLERY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate unified sentence of forty years, with a minimum period of incarceration of twenty years, for six counts of sexually exploitative material; and Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

The Boise Law Firm; Charles C. Crafts, 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 Garrett Charles Mallery pleaded guilty to six counts of possession of sexually exploitative material, Idaho Code § 18-1507(2)(a). The district court imposed an aggregate unified sentence of forty years, with a minimum period of incarceration of twenty years. Mallery filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Mallery appeals. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho

1 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Mallery’s Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 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 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting a Rule 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 Mallery’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, Mallery’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying Mallery’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.