May 23, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
LINDSAY JAE CARNAHAN, Defendant-Appellant.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 509
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge.
Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of five years with two years determinate, and six years with two years determinate, respectively, for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed; 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; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge.
In these consolidated cases, Lindsay Jae Carnahan was convicted of two charges of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). In Docket No. 40145, the district court sentenced Carnahan to a unified term of five years with a minimum period of confinement of two years, and in Docket No. 40146, the district court imposed a unified term of six years with a minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction in both cases but subsequently relinquished jurisdiction. Carnahan filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions, which the district court denied. Carnahan appeals.
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 Carnahan's Rule 35 motions. 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, including any new information submitted with the Rule 35 motion, 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, Carnahan's judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court's orders denying Carnahan's Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.