Opinion
Docket No. 39455 Docket No. 39456 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 557
07-19-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LAURA KRISTIN BAKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge.
Orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Laura Kristin Baker pled guilty to two counts of possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a). In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Baker to concurrent unified terms of ten years, with minimum periods of confinement of two and one-half years. Baker appealed, and this Court affirmed her judgments of conviction and sentences in an unpublished opinion. State v. Baker, Docket Nos. 38954 and 38955 (Ct. App. Jan. 3, 2012). Baker filed I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of her sentences, which the district court denied. Baker 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 Baker's Rule 35 motions was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Baker's Rule 35 motions are affirmed.