From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Sands

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Oct 29, 2024
No. 50642 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2024)

Opinion

50642

10-29-2024

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT ANDREW SANDS, Defendant-Appellant.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge and TRIBE, Judge

PER CURIAM

Robert Andrew Sands pled guilty to felony injury to children. Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The district court imposed a sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Sands on probation. Subsequently, Sands admitted to violating the terms of probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Sands filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion requesting a reduction in the indeterminate portion of his sentence, which the district court denied. Sands 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 or additional information submitted with Sands's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Sands's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Sands

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Oct 29, 2024
No. 50642 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2024)
Case details for

State v. Sands

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ROBERT ANDREW SANDS…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Oct 29, 2024

Citations

No. 50642 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2024)