Home/Idaho Court of Appeals/State v. Sutton

State v. Sutton

679 P.2d 680, 106 Idaho 403, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 451
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 10, 1984
Docket15046
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 679 P.2d 680 (State v. Sutton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Sutton, 679 P.2d 680, 106 Idaho 403, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 451 (Idaho Ct. App. 1984).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, William Sutton, received two concurrent indeterminate eight-year sentences, for first degree burglary and for grand theft. Subsequently, he timely moved for a reduction of his sentences, under rule 35, I.C.R. The motion was denied and he appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in denying the motion. We affirm.

Where, as here, the legality of the initial sentence is not disputed and the Rule 35 motion simply seeks to have the sentence reduced, the motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Arambula, 97 Idaho 627, 550 P.2d 130 (1976). Such a motion is essentially a plea for leniency, which may *404 be granted if the court decides that the sentence originally imposed was, for any reason, unduly severe. 3 C. WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE (Criminal) § 586 (2d ed. 1982).

The appellant did not appeal from his conviction or sentencing and presents to us no evidence that the original sentences were unduly severe. Both sentences were well within the maximum punishment which could have been imposed for the crimes. I.C. § 18-1403 (maximum of fifteen years for first degree burglary); I.C. § 18-2408 (maximum of fourteen years plus $5000 fine for grand theft).

In support of his motion to reduce the sentences the appellant submitted no evidence concerning the severity of his sentences. He did, however, present two letters — one from the state Department of Health and Welfare and the other from the prosecuting attorney’s office in a neighboring county — indicating that at or about the time he was sentenced, he had a habit of alcohol abuse. This evidence is not sufficient, in our view, to establish that the original sentences were unduly harsh or severe. Because Sutton presented no other evidence to invoke the exercise of leniency by the district court, we hold he has failed to show the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 35 motion.

The order denying the motion to reduce sentences is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Gardiner
898 P.2d 615 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1995)
State v. Yates
836 P.2d 571 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1992)
State v. Puente-Gomez
827 P.2d 715 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1992)
State v. McGonigal
822 P.2d 1020 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1991)
State v. Prieto
820 P.2d 1241 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1991)
State v. Matthews
798 P.2d 941 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1990)
State v. Allbee
771 P.2d 66 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1989)
State v. Beam
766 P.2d 678 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1988)
State v. Wright
757 P.2d 714 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1988)
State v. Martinez
746 P.2d 994 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1987)
State v. Galbraith
723 P.2d 923 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1986)
State v. Haggard
715 P.2d 1005 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1986)
State v. Dusenbery
710 P.2d 640 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1985)
State v. Russell
710 P.2d 633 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1985)
State v. Slinger
707 P.2d 474 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1985)
State v. Araiza
706 P.2d 77 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1985)
State v. Yarbrough
681 P.2d 1020 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1984)
State v. Lopez
680 P.2d 869 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
679 P.2d 680, 106 Idaho 403, 1984 Ida. App. LEXIS 451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-sutton-idahoctapp-1984.