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. Miguel Lequerica

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO


April 9, 2013

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
MIGUEL LEQUERICA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Elmore County. Hon. R. Barry Wood, District Judge.

Per curiam.

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 438

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seventeen years, with a minimum period of confinement of six years, for felony eluding with a persistent violator enhancement, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

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

Miguel Lequerica pled guilty to felony eluding with a persistent violator enhancement. Idaho Code §§ 49-1404(1) and (2)(a) or (c), 19-2514. The district court sentenced Lequerica to a unified term of seventeen years, with a minimum period of confinement of six years. Lequerica filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Lequerica appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his I.C.R. 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.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Lequerica's 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, Lequerica's judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Lequerica's Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

20130409

© 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.