Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Pipkin

Court of Appeals of Idaho

June 27, 2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
COLE ALEXANDER PIPKIN, Defendant-Appellant.

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 555

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, 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

PER CURIAM

Cole Alexander Pipkin pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen. Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court sentenced Pipkin to a unified term of ten years with four years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Prior to the expiration of the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered Pipkin's sentence without reduction. Pipkin filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Pipkin appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his 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. Gill, 150 Idaho 183, 186, 244 P.3d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). 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 Pipkin's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Pipkin's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.