From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Meeds

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Dec 1, 2016
Docket No. 44315 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2016)

Opinion

Docket No. 44315 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 801

12-01-2016

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ISMIEL EMANNUAL MEEDS, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Ismiel Emannual Meeds pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. I.C. § 18-3316. The district court sentenced Meeds to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to run consecutive to an unrelated sentence. Meeds filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Meeds 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 any new information submitted with Meeds's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Meeds's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Meeds

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Dec 1, 2016
Docket No. 44315 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2016)
Case details for

State v. Meeds

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ISMIEL EMANNUAL MEEDS…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Dec 1, 2016

Citations

Docket No. 44315 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2016)