Filed Date: 2/27/2012
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 38920 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 373 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: February 27, 2012 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) BRENT R. PRICE, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge. Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM Brent R. Price pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Price to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court suspended the sentence and placed Price on probation. Thereafter, Price admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The district court revoked Price’s probation and ordered execution of his original sentence. Price filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Price 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 the new information submitted with Price’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Price’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed. 2