August 7, 2012
STATE OF IDAHO,
WILLIAM CARTER MITCHELL,
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2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 580
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
William Carter Mitchell pleaded guilty to felony domestic violence, Idaho Code § 18- 918(3) (b), with a persistent violator enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court sentenced Mitchell to a unified twenty-year term of imprisonment with seven years determinate. Mitchell filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Mitchell 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 motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new information in support of Mitchell's Rule 35 motion was presented, review of the sentence by this Court is precluded. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Mitchell's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.