State of Idaho v. Garrett Charles Mallery

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 9, 2023
• Docket: 49983
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49983

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 9, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED GARRETT CHARLES MALLERY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and ten-year determinate sentence for injury to child, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reconsideration of sentence, 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 BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Garrett Charles Mallery pled guilty to injury to child, Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a ten- year determinate sentence to run concurrently with Mallery’s sentence in a separate case. 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.