April 23, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
CURTIS ALLEN PENNINGTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 455
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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 sentence, affirmed.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Curtis Allen Pennington pled guilty to grand theft. I.C. §§ 18-2403(2), 18-2407(1)(b), 18-2409. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Pennington was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Pennington to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to run concurrent with an unrelated sentence. Pennington filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Pennington 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). Upon review of the record, including the new information submitted with Pennington's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Pennington's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.