May 22, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
PAUL NANEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 502
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.
Orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge.
In in these consolidated appeals, Paul Nanez pled guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed and the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Nanez was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Nanez to concurrent unified terms of seven years, with minimum periods of confinement of four years. The district court retained jurisdiction, but thereafter relinquished such jurisdiction. However, upon relinquishment of jurisdiction, the district court sua sponte reduced Nanez's sentences to concurrent unified terms of seven years, with minimum periods of confinement of one year. Nanez filed I.C.R 35 motions for further reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. Nanez 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 Nanez's Rule 35 motions, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's orders denying Nanez's Rule 35 motions are affirmed.