State v. Coleman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 46255
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 11, 2019
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MELISSA CAROL COLEMAN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Elmore County. Hon. Nancy Baskin, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two and one-half years, for vehicular manslaughter, affirmed;
order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Melissa Carol Coleman entered an Alford1 plea to vehicular manslaughter. Idaho Code
§ 18-4006(3)(b). The district court sentenced Coleman to ten years with two and one-half years
determinate. Coleman filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Coleman appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive
sentence and by denying her I.C.R. 35 motion.
1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
1
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,
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 Coleman’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). Upon review of the record, including
any new information submitted with Coleman’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Coleman’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Coleman’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.
2