Opinion
Docket No. 46624
07-24-2019
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. REYNEL DAVID GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Minodoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge. Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Reynel David Garcia pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004 and 18-8005(6). The district court sentenced Garcia to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Garcia filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Garcia appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying his motion for reduction of sentence.
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). On appeal, Garcia acknowledges that he did not submit any new information with his Rule 35 motion. Accordingly, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Garcia's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.