Filed: Apr. 21, 2011
Latest Update: Apr. 21, 2011
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM David A. Howell entered an Alford 1 plea to aggravated assault. I.C. 19-905(B). In exchange for his guilty plea, a deadly weapon enhancement was dismissed. The district court sentenced Howell to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Howell filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Howell appeals. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion.
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM David A. Howell entered an Alford 1 plea to aggravated assault. I.C. 19-905(B). In exchange for his guilty plea, a deadly weapon enhancement was dismissed. The district court sentenced Howell to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Howell filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Howell appeals. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. ..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM
David A. Howell entered an Alford1 plea to aggravated assault. I.C. § 19-905(B). In exchange for his guilty plea, a deadly weapon enhancement was dismissed. The district court sentenced Howell to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Howell filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Howell appeals.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Howell's Rule 35 motion. 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 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). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Howell's judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Howell's Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.
