STATE v. MITCHELL, 39578 (2012)
Court: Court of Appeals of Idaho
Number: inidco20120807208
Visitors: 7
Filed: Aug. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 07, 2012
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. William Carter Mitchell pleaded guilty to felony domestic violence, Idaho Code 18-918(3)(b), with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. 19-2514. The district court sentenced Mitchell to a unified twenty-year term of imprisonment with seven years determinate. Mitchell filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Mitchell appeals. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. William Carter Mitchell pleaded guilty to felony domestic violence, Idaho Code 18-918(3)(b), with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. 19-2514. The district court sentenced Mitchell to a unified twenty-year term of imprisonment with seven years determinate. Mitchell filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Mitchell appeals. A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is ..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
William Carter Mitchell pleaded guilty to felony domestic violence, Idaho Code § 18-918(3)(b), with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Mitchell to a unified twenty-year term of imprisonment with seven years determinate. Mitchell filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Mitchell 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). An appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new information in support of Mitchell's Rule 35 motion was presented, review of the sentence by this Court is precluded. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Mitchell's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Source: Leagle
