Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Idaho v. Benjamin Jarod Roll

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO


June 28, 2012

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
BENJAMIN JAROD ROLL,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.

Per curiam.

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 542

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

This case involves consolidated appeals. In docket number 38872, Benjamin Jarod Roll pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property. Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4),

18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Roll to a unified term of ten years, with four years determinate, to run concurrently with his sentences in docket number 38873. In docket number 38873, Roll pled guilty to forgery, I.C. § 18-3601, and two counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property, I.C. §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Roll to concurrent, unified terms of ten years, with four years determinate, for each count, also to run concurrently with his sentence in docket number 38872. Roll filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion as to both cases, which the district court denied. Roll appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 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). Upon review of the record, including the new information submitted with Roll's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Roll's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

20120628

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.