September 25, 2012
STATE OF IDAHO,
DAVID SHANE FERDIG,
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff, District Judge.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 645
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
David Shane Ferdig was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37- 2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified four-year sentence with a two-year deteminate term and retained jurisdiction. The district court relinquished jurisdiction and Ferdig filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Ferdig 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 Ferdig'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 Ferdig's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.