Opinion
48549
12-02-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TODD ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Maya Legal, PLLC; Maya P. Waldron, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Michael Reardon, District Judge.
Order denying of Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.
Maya Legal, PLLC; Maya P. Waldron, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before HUSKEY, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge
PER CURIAM.
Todd Alexander Hamilton pleaded guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code § 18-2403(1), -2407(1)(b), -2409, -204. The district court imposed a unified sentence of three years, with a minimum period of confinement of six months. Hamilton filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion requesting the district court to place him on probation and order 180 days of jail, which the district court denied. Hamilton 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 an I.C.R. 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 Hamilton's I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Hamilton's I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.