State v. Antonio Marcos Bautista ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 42356
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )    2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 576
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )    Filed: July 29, 2015
    )
    v.                                              )    Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    ANTONIO MARCOS BAUTISTA,                        )    THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    )    OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    Defendant-Appellant.                     )    BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
    Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge.
    Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
    of confinement of five years, for felony injury to a child, affirmed; order denying
    I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
    Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, 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
    Antonio Marcos Bautista entered an Alford 1 plea to felony injury to a child, 
    Idaho Code § 18-1501
    (1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
    of confinement of five years. Bautista filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of
    his sentence, which the district court denied. Bautista appeals.
    Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
    factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established.
    1
    See North Carolina v. Alford, 
    400 U.S. 25
     (1970).
    1
    See State v. Hernandez, 
    121 Idaho 114
    , 117-18, 
    822 P.2d 1011
    , 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State
    v. Lopez, 
    106 Idaho 447
    , 449-51, 
    680 P.2d 869
    , 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 
    103 Idaho 565
    , 568, 
    650 P.2d 707
    , 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence,
    we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 
    144 Idaho 722
    , 726, 
    170 P.3d 387
    ,
    391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot
    say that the district court abused its discretion.
    Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Bautista’s Rule 35 motion. 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). In conducting our review of the grant
    or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for
    determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 
    113 Idaho 21
    , 22, 
    740 P.2d 63
    , 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of
    the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
    Therefore, Bautista’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
    denying Bautista’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.
    2