From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Allen

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Feb 7, 2014
Docket No. 41032 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 41032 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 357

02-07-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KRISTIE KAEDEAN ALLEN, aka, KRISTIE KAYDEN BOONE, KCHRIS BOONE, KRISTIE BROTHERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben Patrick McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk


THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Molly J. Huskey, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with two years determinate, for delivery of a controlled substance, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben Patrick McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Kristie Kaedean Allen pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Allen to a unified term of seven years, with two years determinate. Allen filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of her sentence, which the district court denied. Allen now appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying her Rule 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 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 Allen's Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 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, Allen's judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Allen's Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Allen

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Feb 7, 2014
Docket No. 41032 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2014)
Case details for

State v. Allen

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KRISTIE KAEDEAN ALLEN, aka…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Feb 7, 2014

Citations

Docket No. 41032 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2014)