Opinion
Docket No. 39813 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 738
11-27-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ERNEST LEE MARTIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT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. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge.
Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Ernest Lee Martin pled guilty to burglary. Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district court sentenced Martin to a unified term of ten years, with four years determinate. Martin filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentence and a request for leave to file supplemental information in support of the motion. The district court granted the request; however, no supplemental information was filed with the court. The district court consequently denied Martin's Rule 35 motion. Martin appeals.
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). An appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of Martin's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Martin's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.