Opinion
Docket No. 39308 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 470
05-10-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATHAN LEVI SCHENK, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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 Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.
Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Nathan Levi Schenk pled guilty to fraudulent use of a financial transaction card. Idaho Code §§ 18-3124(1), 18-3128(1). The district court sentenced Schenk to a unified term of five years, with three years determinate, but suspended the sentence and placed Schenk on probation. Subsequently, Schenk was found to have violated several terms of the probation; however, the district court continued the probation. Several months later, Schenk was again found to have violated several terms of the probation. The district court revoked probation and executed the underlying sentence, but retained jurisdiction. After Schenk participated in the rider program, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Schenk then filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Schenk now appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 35 motion.
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 Schenk's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Schenk's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.