June 10, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
CRISTIAN ALBERTO GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 532
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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
Cristian Alberto Gonzalez pled guilty to felony intimidating, impeding, influencing, or preventing the attendance of a witness, Idaho Code §§ 18-2604(3), 18-204. The district court sentenced Gonzalez to a unified term of four years, with one year determinate, but suspended the sentence and placed Gonzalez on probation. Subsequently, Gonzalez violated his probation. The district court revoked probation, executed the underlying sentence, and retained jurisdiction. Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Gonzalez's sentence and again placed him on probation. After Gonzalez violated his probation a second time, the district court revoked probation and executed the underlying sentence. Gonzalez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Gonzalez appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion.
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 any new information submitted with Gonzalez's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Gonzalez's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.