State v. Price

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRENT R. PRICE…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Feb 27, 2012

Docket No. 38920 (Idaho Ct. App. Feb. 27, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 38920 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 373

02-27-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BRENT R. PRICE, 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

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Bingham County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 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 LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Brent R. Price pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Price to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court suspended the sentence and placed Price on probation. Thereafter, Price admitted to violating the terms of his probation. The district court revoked Price's probation and ordered execution of his original sentence. Price filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Price 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 Price's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Price's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.