January 11, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO,
BRUNO ANTONIO SANTOS-DOMINGUEZ,
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Blaine County. Hon. Robert J. Elgee, District Judge.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 321
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
In docket number 40094, Bruno Antonio Santos-Dominguez pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine. Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4)(B). The district court sentenced Santos- Dominguez to a unified term of fourteen years, with eight years determinate. In docket number 40095, Santos-Dominguez pled guilty to delivery of cocaine. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(4)(B). The district court sentenced Santos-Dominguez to a unified term of ten years, with five years determinate, to run concurrently with Santos-Dominguez's sentence in docket number 40094. Santos-Dominguez appealed both cases, which were consolidated on appeal. This Court affirmed the judgments of conviction and sentences in an unpublished opinion. State v. Santos- Dominguez, Docket Nos. 38990/38991 (Ct. App. Apr. 17, 2012). While the appeals were pending, Santos-Dominguez filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for a reduction of his sentences in both cases. The district court denied both motions. Santos-Dominguez now appeals the denial of his Rule 35 motions. The two cases are consolidated on appeal.
A motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 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 Santos-Dominguez's Rule 35 motions, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's orders denying Santos-Dominguez's Rule 35 motions are affirmed.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.