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. Joshua Alan Davis

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO


November 13, 2012

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
JOSHUA ALAN DAVIS,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Bradly S. Ford, District Judge.

Per curiam.

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 715

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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

Joshua Alan Davis pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-1401. The district court sentenced Davis to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court suspended the sentence and placed Davis on probation. Davis served numerous periods of discretionary jail time while on probation, participated in the retained jurisdiction program, and ultimately admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The district court revoked Davis's probation and ordered execution of his suspended sentence. Davis filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Davis 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). Upon review of the record, including the new information submitted with Davis's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Davis's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

20121113

© 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.