State v. Smith

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KIM M. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jan 14, 2019

Docket No. 45778 (Idaho Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2019)

Opinion

Docket No. 45778

01-14-2019

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KIM M. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner County. Hon. Barbara Buchanan, District Judge. Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Kim M. Smith pled guilty to rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(4). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of life, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years. Smith filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Smith 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 Smith's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Smith's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.