May 2, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO,
JOSEPH DARRELLD MAESTAS, AKA
JOSEPH DARRELL MAESTAS; JOSEPH
DARRYL MAESTAS; JOSEPH DARRELD MAESTAS,
Appeals from the District Courts of the Fourth and Third Judicial Districts, State of Idaho, Ada and Canyon Counties. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge; Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge.
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 477
Orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
In docket number 39935, Joseph Darrelld Maestas, aka Joseph Darrell Maestas, Joseph Darryl Maestas, Joseph Darreld Maestas, pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401, and grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Maestas to a concurrent, unified term of ten years, with two years determinate, for each conviction. In docket number 39965, Maestas pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-1401. The district court sentenced Maestas to a unified term of ten years, with two years determinate, to run concurrently with Maestas's sentences in docket number 39935. Maestas filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions in both cases seeking a reduction of his sentences. The district court denied the motions. Maestas appealed in both cases, and the two cases have been consolidated on appeal.
A motion for reduction of sentence under 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 Maestas's Rule 35 motions, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district courts' orders denying Maestas's Rule 35 motions are affirmed.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.