From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Crane

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Oct 3, 2016
Docket No. 43992 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2016)

Opinion

Docket No. 43992 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 716

10-03-2016

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CLINTON MARCUS CRANE, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Latah County. Hon. John R. Stegner, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Clinton Marcus Crane pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004 and 18-8005(9). The district court sentenced Crane to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Crane filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Crane appeals.

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). 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 Crane's Rule 35 motion. 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). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

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


Summaries of

State v. Crane

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Oct 3, 2016
Docket No. 43992 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2016)
Case details for

State v. Crane

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CLINTON MARCUS CRANE…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Oct 3, 2016

Citations

Docket No. 43992 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 3, 2016)