State v. Munoz

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: August 14, 2018
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45771

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: August 14, 2018 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OLIVIA MERCADO MUNOZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael P. Tribe, 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 Olivia Mercado Munoz pleaded guilty to felony fraudulent procurement of public assistance, Idaho Code § 56-227(1). The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with two years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following Munoz’s period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and executed the underlying sentence. Munoz filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Munoz 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

1 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). An appeal from the denial of an I.C.R. 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of Munoz’s I.C.R. 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Munoz’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.