State v. Maxwell

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EDWARD CONCE MAXWELL…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Oct 12, 2012

Docket No. 39488 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 12, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 39488 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 671

10-12-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. EDWARD CONCE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant.

Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett LLP; Dennis Benjamin, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Michael R. McLaughlin, District Judge.
Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett LLP; Dennis Benjamin, 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

Edward Conce Maxwell pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a), and possession of a controlled substance with the intent to deliver, I.C. § 37-2732(a). The district court sentenced Maxwell to a unified term of five years, with one year determinate, for the delivery conviction and a consecutive, indeterminate term of five years for the possession conviction. Maxwell filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Maxwell 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 Maxwell's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Maxwell's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.