State v. Brown

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES HOWARD BROWN…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Aug 24, 2012

Docket No. 39365 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 39365 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 603

08-24-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JAMES HOWARD BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge.
Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

James Howard Brown pled guilty to forgery. I.C. §§ 18-3601, 18-3606. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed and the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Brown was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Brown to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Brown filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Brown 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 Brown's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Brown's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.