STATE v. CANNON, 38265. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of Idaho
Number: inidco20110823220
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 23, 2011
Latest Update: Aug. 23, 2011
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Randy Louis Cannon, Jr. pled guilty to robbery. I.C. 18-6501, 18-6502. The district court sentenced Cannon to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction and Cannon was sent to participate in the rider program. Thereafter, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Cannon filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Randy Louis Cannon, Jr. pled guilty to robbery. I.C. 18-6501, 18-6502. The district court sentenced Cannon to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction and Cannon was sent to participate in the rider program. Thereafter, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Cannon filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. C..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
Randy Louis Cannon, Jr. pled guilty to robbery. I.C. § 18-6501, 18-6502. The district court sentenced Cannon to a unified term of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction and Cannon was sent to participate in the rider program. Thereafter, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Cannon filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Cannon 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 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 Cannon's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Cannon's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Source: Leagle
