State v. Ferdig

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID SHANE FERDIG…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Sep 25, 2012

Docket No. 39184 (Idaho Ct. App. Sep. 25, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 39184 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 645

09-25-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. DAVID SHANE FERDIG, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff, District Judge.
Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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

David Shane Ferdig was convicted of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified four-year sentence with a two-year deteminate term and retained jurisdiction. The district court relinquished jurisdiction and Ferdig filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Ferdig 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 information in support of Ferdig's Rule 35 motion was presented, review of the sentence by this Court is precluded. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Ferdig's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.