State v. Conn

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL ROY CONN…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jan 9, 2013

Docket No. 39697 (Idaho Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 39697 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 319

01-09-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL ROY CONN, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Michael Roy Conn pled guilty to sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age. I.C. §§ 18-1508A. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Conn to a unified term of seventeen years, with a minimum period of confinement of seven years. Conn filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Conn 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 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). An appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of Conn's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Conn's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.