Opinion
Docket No. 46455
05-21-2019
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAY RAY BRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge. Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Jay Ray Bright pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court sentenced Bright to a unified term of eight years with four years determinate. Bright filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Bright appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his 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 Bright's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Bright's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.