From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Descharme

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Mar 20, 2023
No. 49880 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2023)

Opinion

49880

03-20-2023

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHELLE RENE DESCHARME, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of three years, with credit for time served, for escape, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

PER CURIAM

Michelle Rene Descharme pled guilty to escape, Idaho Code § 18-2505. The district court imposed a determinate term of three years with credit for time served in the amount of 672 days. Descharme filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Descharme appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying her Rule 35 motion to reduce her sentence.

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 Descharme's 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 Descharme's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

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


Summaries of

State v. Descharme

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Mar 20, 2023
No. 49880 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2023)
Case details for

State v. Descharme

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHELLE RENE DESCHARME…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Mar 20, 2023

Citations

No. 49880 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 20, 2023)