eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Idaho Court of Appeals
 2016-06

State v. Shawn Clark ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 43614
STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 567
)
Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: June 15, 2016
)
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
SHAWN CLARK,                                    )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
)   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Shoshone County. Hon. Fred M. Gibler, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and sentence and order denying Idaho criminal Rule 35
motion, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Shawn Clark pleaded guilty to sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years
of age, felony, Idaho Code § 18-1508A(1)(c). The district court imposed a unified twenty-year
sentence, with twelve years determinate. Clark filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which
the district court denied. Clark 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.
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,
1
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 Clark’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, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Clark’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Clark’s I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.
2