State v. John D. Allen ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 36574
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )     2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 453
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )     Filed: May 6, 2010
    )
    v.                                              )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    JOHN D. ALLEN,                                  )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    Defendant-Appellant.                     )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
    County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.
    Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
    Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
    Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
    Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
    General, Boise, for respondent.
    ______________________________________________
    Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
    and MELANSON, Judge
    PER CURIAM
    John D. Allen pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen. I.C. § 18-1508. In
    exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges and an allegation that Allen was a persistent
    violator were dismissed. The district court sentenced Allen to a unified term of twenty years,
    with a minimum period of confinement of seven years. Allen filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which
    the district court denied. Allen 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
    1
    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 Allen’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
    abuse of discretion has been shown.   Therefore, the district court’s order denying Allen’s
    Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 5/6/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021