State v. Soto

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OMAR GUADALUPE SOTO…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Dec 21, 2018

Docket No. 46124 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2018)

Opinion

Docket No. 46124

12-21-2018

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OMAR GUADALUPE SOTO, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge. Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, 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 HUSKEY, Judge

____________________

PER CURIAM

Omar Guadalupe Soto pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. Soto filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Soto 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 Soto's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Soto's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.