Opinion
Docket No. 39009
05-24-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. AMELIA MARIE MAKI, Defendant-Appellant.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 490
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Gem
County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled
substance, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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
Amelia Marie Maki pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(C)(1). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Maki to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. However, the district court retained jurisdiction and allowed Maki to participate in the rider program. Following her unsuccessful rider, the district court ordered execution of the original sentence. Maki filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Maki 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 Maki's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Maki's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.