Opinion
Docket No. 38851 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 390
03-05-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. REBECCA LYNN ADAMS, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. David C. Nye, District Judge.
Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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
Rebecca Lynn Adams pled guilty to aggravated battery. I.C. § 18-903, 18-907(1)(a). The district court withheld judgment and placed Adams on probation for fifteen years. Adams admitted to violating the terms of her probation. The district court revoked Adams's withheld judgment and sentenced her to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. However, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Adams on probation. Adams again admitted to violating the terms of her probation. The district court revoked Adams's probation, ordered execution of her sentence, but retained jurisdiction. Following successful completion of the retained jurisdiction program, the district court again placed Adams on probation. Thereafter, Adams again admitted to violating the terms of her probation. The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of Adams's sentence. Adams filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Adams 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 Adams's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Adams's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.