STATE v. CORNING, 43041 (2015)
Court: Court of Appeals of Idaho
Number: inidco20151207145
Visitors: 6
Filed: Dec. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2015
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM . Billy D. Corning IV pleaded guilty to violation of a no contact order, felony, I.C. 18-920. The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with two years determinate. At sentencing, the district court verbally granted Corning credit for time served. The original judgment of conviction did not reflect that Corning was given credit for time served. Corning filed an I.C.R. 35 motion requesting reduction
Summary: THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY PER CURIAM . Billy D. Corning IV pleaded guilty to violation of a no contact order, felony, I.C. 18-920. The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with two years determinate. At sentencing, the district court verbally granted Corning credit for time served. The original judgment of conviction did not reflect that Corning was given credit for time served. Corning filed an I.C.R. 35 motion requesting reduction o..
More
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
PER CURIAM.
Billy D. Corning IV pleaded guilty to violation of a no contact order, felony, I.C. § 18-920. The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with two years determinate. At sentencing, the district court verbally granted Corning credit for time served. The original judgment of conviction did not reflect that Corning was given credit for time served. Corning filed an I.C.R. 35 motion requesting reduction of his determinate sentence and credit for time served. The district court denied reduction of his determinate sentence, but granted Corning credit for time served. Corning 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 any new information submitted with Corning's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Corning's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Source: Leagle
