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. Marvin Darryl Shaw

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO


January 7, 2013

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MARVIN DARRYL SHAW,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Thomas F. Neville, District Judge.

Per curiam.

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 310

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 sentences, affirmed.

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

Marvin Darryl Shaw pled guilty to robbery, I.C. §§ 18-6501 and 18-6502, and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Shaw to a unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty years, for robbery and a concurrent determinate term of five years for unlawful possession of a firearm. Shaw filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Shaw 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 or additional information in support of Shaw's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Shaw's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

20130107

© 1992-2013 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.