State v. Howard

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45760

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: August 2, 2018 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED PATRICK DEE HOWARD, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Maya P. Waldron, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM Patrick Dee Howard pleaded guilty to grand theft of a rented or leased automobile, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(5)(b), -2407, -2409. The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with two years determinate. Howard filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Howard 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 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

1 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 Howard’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Howard’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.