State v. Jamie Lea Allshouse ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 42541
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 540
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: June 30, 2015
    )
    v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    JAMIE LEA ALLSHOUSE,                            )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
    Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge.
    Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, 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
    Jamie Lea Allshouse pled guilty to leaving the scene of an injury accident. 
    Idaho Code § 18-8007
    . The district court sentenced Allshouse to a unified term of five years with two years
    determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Allshouse on supervised probation for three
    years. After Allshouse violated her probation, the district court reinstated her on probation for
    two years. After Allshouse again violated her probation, the district court revoked her probation,
    ordered the underlying sentence executed, and retained jurisdiction. Allshouse filed an I.C.R 35
    motion, which the district court denied. Allshouse appeals asserting that the district court abused
    its discretion by denying her Rule 35 motion.
    1
    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. Gill, 
    150 Idaho 183
    , 186, 
    244 P.3d 1269
    , 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). 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 Allshouse’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude
    no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Allshouse’s
    Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 6/30/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021