Filed: Oct. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Oct. 12, 2012
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Edward Conce Maxwell pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance, Idaho Code 37-2732(a), and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, I.C. 37-2732(a). The district court sentenced Maxwell to a unified term of five years, with one year determinate, for the delivery conviction and a consecutive, indeterminate term of five years for the possession conviction. Maxwell filed an Idaho Cri
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM. Edward Conce Maxwell pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance, Idaho Code 37-2732(a), and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, I.C. 37-2732(a). The district court sentenced Maxwell to a unified term of five years, with one year determinate, for the delivery conviction and a consecutive, indeterminate term of five years for the possession conviction. Maxwell filed an Idaho Crim..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
Edward Conce Maxwell pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a), and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, I.C. § 37-2732(a). The district court sentenced Maxwell to a unified term of five years, with one year determinate, for the delivery conviction and a consecutive, indeterminate term of five years for the possession conviction. Maxwell filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Maxwell appeals.
A motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 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 Maxwell's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Maxwell's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
