State v. Dillen James Endres ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 42762
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 616
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: September 4, 2015
    )
    v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    DILLEN JAMES ENDRES,                            )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
    Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge.
    Order dismissing Idaho        Criminal   Rule    35   motion   for   reduction   of
    sentences, affirmed.
    Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy
    Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
    Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
    General, Boise, for respondent.
    ________________________________________________
    Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
    and GRATTON, Judge
    ________________________________________________
    PER CURIAM
    Dillen James Endres pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with an enhancement
    for the use of a firearm, Idaho Code §§ 18-901(a), 19-2520, 18-905(1)(b); second degree arson,
    I.C. § 18-803; and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. The district court imposed concurrent unified
    sentences of sixteen years, with eight years determinate, for each count of aggravated assault;
    three years determinate for second degree arson; and five years, with three years determinate, for
    burglary. Endres filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion. The district court issued a notice of
    intent to dismiss, allowing Endres time to provide additional information in support of his
    1
    motion. Endres failed to file any additional information, and thus the district court dismissed the
    Rule 35 motion. Endres 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 or additional information in support of
    Endres’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the
    foregoing reasons, the district court’s order dismissing Endres’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 9/4/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021