State v. Madsen

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GLENN ALLEN MADSEN…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: May 8, 2012

Docket No. 38790 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 8, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 38790

05-08-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GLENN ALLEN MADSEN, Defendant-Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 466

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Benjamin R. Simpson, District Judge.

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, 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; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Glenn Allen Madsen was convicted of aiding and abetting burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district court sentenced Madsen to a unified sentence of seven years with a minimum period of confinement of two years and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction period, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Madsen apparently made an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Madsen 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 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 Madsen's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Madsen's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.