Opinion
Docket No. 39894 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 386
03-04-2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHRISTINA MARIE MOCK, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.
Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Christina Marie Mock pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Mock to a unified term of five years, with two years determinate, but suspended the sentence and placed Mock on probation. Shortly thereafter, the district court found Mock violated the terms of her probation. After requiring Mock to serve jail time, the district court continued Mock's probation with the additional requirement that she undergo substance abuse treatment. Subsequently, Mock admitted to again violating the terms of her probation. The district court revoked Mock's probation, executed the underlying sentence, and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished its jurisdiction. Mock filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction of sentence, but did not submit any new or additional information in support of the motion. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. Mock appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in denying her 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). 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 Mock's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Mock's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.