State v. Willaim Van Cook ( 2013 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket Nos. 40328/40329
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 544
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: June 20, 2013
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
WILLIAM VAN COOK, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
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
PER CURIAM
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.
1
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.
2