Opinion
Docket No. 39620 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 685
10-19-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. QUINTON JARMAIN ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge.
Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, 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; LANSING, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Quinton Jarmain Rowe pled guilty to an amended charge of possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, the state also dismissed a sentencing enhancement. The district court sentenced Rowe to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court retained jurisdiction and, following successful completion of his rider, Rowe was placed on probation. Rowe thereafter violated the terms of his probation, and the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of Rowe's original sentence. Rowe filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Rowe 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 Rowe's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Rowe's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.