STATE v. OSHEA-ARESTA, 42956 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of Idaho
Number: inidco20150923159
Visitors: 33
Filed: Sep. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 23, 2015
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM . John R. Oshea-Aresta pled guilty to attempted strangulation, Idaho Code 18-923. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with five years determinate. Oshea-Aresta filed an Idaho Criminal Rule (I.C.R.) 35 motion containing new information, which the district court denied. Oshea-Aresta appeals. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM . John R. Oshea-Aresta pled guilty to attempted strangulation, Idaho Code 18-923. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with five years determinate. Oshea-Aresta filed an Idaho Criminal Rule (I.C.R.) 35 motion containing new information, which the district court denied. Oshea-Aresta appeals. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed ..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
John R. Oshea-Aresta pled guilty to attempted strangulation, Idaho Code § 18-923. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with five years determinate. Oshea-Aresta filed an Idaho Criminal Rule (I.C.R.) 35 motion containing new information, which the district court denied. Oshea-Aresta 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 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 Oshea-Aresta's I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Oshea-Aresta's I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.
Source: Leagle
