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. Michael Roy Conn

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO


January 9, 2013

STATE OF IDAHO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MICHAEL ROY CONN,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Per curiam.

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 319

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

Michael Roy Conn pled guilty to sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age. I.C. §§ 18-1508A. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Conn to a unified term of seventeen years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years. Conn filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Conn 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 Conn's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Conn's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

20130109

© 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.