State v. Pennington

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CURTIS ALLEN PENNINGTON…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Apr 23, 2013

Docket No. 40312 (Idaho Ct. App. Apr. 23, 2013)

Opinion

Docket No. 40312 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 455

04-23-2013

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CURTIS ALLEN PENNINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge.

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Curtis Allen Pennington pled guilty to grand theft. I.C. §§ 18-2403(2), 18-2407(1)(b), 18-2409. In exchange for his guilty plea, the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Pennington was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Pennington to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to run concurrent with an unrelated sentence. Pennington filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Pennington 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). Upon review of the record, including the new information submitted with Pennington's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Pennington's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.