Opinion
Docket No. 43871 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 577
06-22-2016
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KIMBERLY DAWN HENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge. Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Kimberly Dawn Henson pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine. Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4). The district court sentenced Henson to a unified term of fifteen years with three years determinate. Henson filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Henson appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying the Rule 35 motion.
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). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Henson's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Henson's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.