December 21, 2012
STATE OF IDAHO,
CORY JOHN STAPLES,
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 766
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony malicious injury to property, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Cory John Staples entered an Alford plea*fn1 to felony malicious injury to property. Idaho Code § 18-7001. The district court sentenced Staples to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Staples filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Staples appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence, particularly because it failed to retain jurisdiction.
Appellant further asserts that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing or by failing to retain jurisdiction.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Staples' Rule 35 motion. 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). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Staples' judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Staples' Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.