Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 536
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for failure to register as a sex offender, to be served consecutive to a sentence in an unrelated matter, affirmed; order denying
I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Collin Alan Schmidt pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. Idaho Code §§ 18-8311, 18-8309. The district court sentenced Schmidt to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to run consecutive to a unified sentence of six years with one year determinate in an unrelated matter. Schmidt filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Schmidt appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his Rule 35 motion.
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. 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 Schmidt'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, Schmidt's judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Schmidt's Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...