State v. Smith

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: January 14, 2019
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45778

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: January 14, 2019 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED KIM M. SMITH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) )

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Barbara Buchanan, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM Kim M. Smith pled guilty to rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(4). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of life, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Smith filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Smith 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 a Rule 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). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Smith’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Smith’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.