State v. Glenn Anthony Thor

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 7, 2013
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39926/39928

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 391 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: March 7, 2013 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) GLENN ANTHONY THOR, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.

Orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM Pursuant to a plea agreement, Glenn Anthony Thor pled guilty to two counts of arson in the third degree--one count in docket number 39926 and one count in docket number 39928. Idaho Code § 18-804(1). The district court sentenced Thor to a concurrent, unified term of ten years, with three years determinate, for each count. Thor subsequently filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction of his sentences. The district court denied both motions. Thor appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion. 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

1 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 the new information submitted with Thor’s Rule 35 motions, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s orders denying Thor’s Rule 35 motions are affirmed.