State v. Holtan

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CORY R. HOLTAN…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Feb 1, 2012

Docket No. 38870 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 38870

02-01-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CORY R. HOLTAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIA

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 344

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Cory R. Holtan pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender. Idaho Code § 18-8309. The district court sentenced Holtan to a unified term of ten years, with one year determinate. Holtan filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Holtan appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 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 the new information submitted with Holtan's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Holtan's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.