State v. Soto ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 46124
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
    )   Filed: December 21, 2018
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
    )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
    v.                                              )
    )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    OMAR GUADALUPE SOTO,                            )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    Defendant-Appellant.                     )
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
    County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.
    Order denying Idaho         Criminal    Rule    35   motion      for   reduction   of
    sentence, affirmed.
    Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred,
    Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
    Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
    General, Boise, for respondent.
    ________________________________________________
    Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
    and HUSKEY, Judge
    ________________________________________________
    PER CURIAM
    Omar Guadalupe Soto pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, 
    Idaho Code § 37
    -
    2732(c). The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of
    confinement of one and one-half years. Soto filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for
    reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Soto 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 Soto’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
    abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Soto’s Rule 35
    motion is affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 12/21/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021