Opinion
48463
09-30-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. LOGAN KHAIDE KNIFFEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years with five years determinate for one count of sexual abuse of a minor under the age of sixteen years, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before HUSKEY, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
PER CURIAM
Logan Khaide Kniffen pled guilty to one count of sexual abuse of a minor under the age of sixteen years, Idaho Code § 18-1506(1)(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years with five years determinate, gave Kniffen 140 days of credit for time served, and ordered the sentence to run concurrently with a separate case in Montana. Kniffen filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court granted in part by amending the credit for time served to 1, 252 days. The request for reduction of sentence was denied. Kniffen appeals.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Kniffen's Rule 35 motion. A motion for reduction of sentence under 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 any new information submitted with Kniffen's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Kniffen's judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Kniffen's Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, are affirmed.