State v. Christian Duane Obay ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 43351
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 303
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )   Filed: January 5, 2016
    )
    v.                                               )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    CHRISTIAN DUANE OBAY,                            )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    Defendant-Appellant.                      )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
    County. Hon. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.
    Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence,
    affirmed.
    Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
    Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
    Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
    General, Boise, for respondent.
    ________________________________________________
    Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
    and HUSKEY, Judge
    ________________________________________________
    PER CURIAM
    Christian Duane Obay pled guilty to one count of fraudulently obtaining welfare or
    public assistance benefits, Idaho Code § 56-227. The district court imposed a unified sentence of
    seven years, with a two-year determinate term. Obay filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion,
    which the district court denied. Obay 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
    1
    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 Obay’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
    abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Obay’s Rule 35
    motion is affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 1/5/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021