June 20, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
WILLIAM VAN COOK, Defendant-Appellant.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 544
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff, District Judge.
Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of five years with three years determinate for one count of felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and one count of felony possession of methamphetamine, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ian H. Thomson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge.
In these consolidated cases, William Van Cook was convicted of one count of felony possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1), and one count of felony possession of methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Cook to concurrent unified terms of five years with three years determinate. Cook filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Cook 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 Cook's Rule 35 motion. 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 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, Cook's judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court's order denying Cook's Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.