State v. Jason Bradley Homburg ( 2011 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 36886
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 303
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 4, 2011
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
JASON BRADLEY HOMBURG, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.
Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence,
affirmed.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge, LANSING, Judge
and GUTIERREZ, Judge
PER CURIAM
Jason Bradley Homburg was convicted of statutory rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(1). The
district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years with three years determinate. Homburg
filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Homburg appeals from
the denial of his Rule 35 motion.
A Rule 35 motion is a request for leniency which is addressed to the sound discretion of
the sentencing 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
1
201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007). Our focus on review is upon the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1184 (Ct. App.
1982). Where a sentence is not illegal, the appellant must show that it is unreasonably harsh in
light of the primary objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence,
rehabilitation and retribution. State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 405
(1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982).
Having reviewed the record, including the new information submitted with Homburg’s
Rule 35 motion, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion.
Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Homburg’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.
2