From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Adams

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Oct 17, 2024
No. 51255 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2024)

Opinion

51255

10-17-2024

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHNNIE KENDRALL ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Madison County. Hon. Steven W. Boyce, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of nine years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for discharge of a firearm into an occupied building, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie Kendrall Adams pled guilty to unlawful discharge of a firearm into an occupied building, Idaho Code § 18-3317. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of nine years with three years determinate. Adams filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Adams appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his I.C.R. 35 motion.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Adams' 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). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Adams' Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Adams' judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Adams' Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Adams

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Oct 17, 2024
No. 51255 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2024)
Case details for

State v. Adams

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOHNNIE KENDRALL ADAMS…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Oct 17, 2024

Citations

No. 51255 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2024)