State v. Bangham ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 45219
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 414
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: April 6, 2018
    )
    v.                                              )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
    )
    RUSTIN WILLIAM BANGHAM,                         )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Hippler, District Judge.
    Judgment of conviction and sentence and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35
    motion, affirmed.
    Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
    and LORELLO, Judge
    ________________________________________________
    PER CURIAM
    Rustin William Bangham pleaded guilty to domestic battery, 
    Idaho Code §§ 18-918
    (2),
    18-903(a). The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with five years determinate.
    Bangham filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Bangham
    filed a motion to reconsider I.C.R. 35 and motion to enlarge time. The district court denied the
    motion. Bangham appeals and argues the district court abused its discretion by imposing an
    excessive sentence and by denying his I.C.R. 35 motion.
    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
    1
    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 Bangham’s I.C.R. 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 an I.C.R. 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 an I.C.R. 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, including any new information submitted with Bangham’s I.C.R. 35, we conclude
    no abuse of discretion has been shown.
    Therefore, Bangham’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
    denying Bangham’s I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 4/6/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021