September 28, 2012
STATE OF IDAHO,
DAWN M. JOHNSON,
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 649
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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
Dawn M. Johnson was convicted of trafficking in heroin, Idaho Code § 37- 2732B(a)(6)(A); possession of cocaine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1); and possession of drug paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A. The district court imposed concurrent sentences of twenty-two years with seven years determinate for trafficking, seven years determinate for possession of cocaine, and one year determinate for possession of drug paraphernalia. Johnson filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Johnson appeals from the denial of her 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 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 Johnson'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 Johnson's I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.