Opinion
Docket No. 39929 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 754
12-05-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TIMOTHY SHANNON FORGETT, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge.
Order denying successive I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, 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
Timothy Shannon Forgett was convicted of four counts of grand theft by possession of stolen property, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4); 18-2407(1). The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of ten years with two years determinate on each count. Forgett filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Forgett subsequently filed a "Motion to Reconsider Motion for Sentence Reduction" which was also denied. Forgett filed a notice of appeal that is timely only from the denial of his motion for reconsideration.
A motion for reconsideration of a Rule 35 motion is, in substance, a successive Rule 35 motion. As Forgett acknowledges in his appellant's brief, a successive Rule 35 motion is prohibited by that rule, and a trial court therefore lacks jurisdiction to grant a successive Rule 35 motion. See State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 732-33, 52 P.3d 875, 877-78 (Ct. App. 2002). Consequently, Forgett's motion for reconsideration was properly denied by the district court because that court possessed no jurisdiction to grant such a motion.
Accordingly, the district court's order denying Forgett's motion to reconsider the district court's order denying his initial Rule 35 motion is affirmed.