Opinion
Docket No. 40018 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 310
01-07-2013
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MARVIN DARRYL SHAW, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Thomas F. Neville, District Judge.
Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Marvin Darryl Shaw pled guilty to robbery, I.C. §§ 18-6501 and 18-6502, and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Shaw to a unified term of thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty years, for robbery and a concurrent determinate term of five years for unlawful possession of a firearm. Shaw filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Shaw 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). An appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of Shaw's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Shaw's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.