State v. Springer

9 Citing cases

  1. State v. Cottrell

    968 P.2d 1090 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    See State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776, 777-78, 769 P.2d 1148, 1149-50 (Ct.App. 1989) ; State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). If the original sentence was not excessive when imposed, the defendant must demonstrate that it is excessive in light of new or additional information presented with his motion to reduce. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992); Hernandez, 121 Idaho at 117, 822 P.2d at 1014. If a defendant fails to make this showing, we cannot say that denial of the motion represents an abuse of discretion. Springer, 122 Idaho at 545, 835 P.2d at 1356.

  2. State v. Allen

    143 Idaho 267 (Idaho Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that state's breach of a plea agreement constitutes fundamental error and, therefore, defendant's failure to object in the district court did not waive the right to raise the issue for the first time on appeal

    A motion pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35 is essentially a request for leniency which may be granted in the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct.App. 1987). If the sentence is not excessive when imposed, the defendant must show on appeal that it is excessive in view of new or additional information presented with his motion to reduce the sentence. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Caldwell, 119 Idaho 281, 284, 805 P.2d 487, 490 (Ct.App. 1991). We review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, applying the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence.

  3. State v. Marsh

    141 Idaho 862 (Idaho Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 9 times
    Concluding evidence was sufficient to infer sexual intent based on the victim's testimony that the defendant touched her genitals with his bare hand as she pretended to sleep

    A motion pursuant to I.C.R. 35 is essentially a request for leniency which may be granted in the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct.App. 1987). If the sentence is not excessive when imposed, the defendant must show on appeal that it is excessive in view of new or additional information presented with his motion to reduce the sentence. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Caldwell, 119 Idaho 281, 284, 805 P.2d 487, 490 (Ct.App. 1991). We review the trial court's decision for an abuse of discretion, applying the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence.

  4. State v. Hayes

    138 Idaho 761 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 15 times
    Holding that, because defendant did not present any evidence that would give rise to a good-faith doubt as to competence, the absence of a competency hearing did not constitute fundamental error

    A motion to reduce an otherwise lawful sentence is essentially a plea for leniency, and a decision on such a motion is committed to the sound discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Wersland, 125 Idaho 499, 504, 873 P.2d 144, 149 (1994); State v. Lavy, 121 Idaho 842, 845, 828 P.2d 871, 874 (1992); State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014 (Ct.App. 1991). If the original sentence was not excessive when imposed, the appellant must demonstrate that it is excessive in light of new or additional information presented with the motion to reduce the sentence. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). While the statement in the district court's written decision that no new information was presented at the hearing was inaccurate, this does not demonstrate that the district court failed to reach its denial of Hayes's motion through an exercise of reason.

  5. State v. Brumfield

    136 Idaho 913 (Idaho Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 23 times
    Approving forty-nine minute detention while officers awaited arrival of drug dog

    A motion to reduce an otherwise lawful sentence is essentially a plea for leniency, and a decision on such a motion is committed to the sound discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Wersland, 125 Idaho 499, 504, 873 P.2d 144, 149 (1994); State v. Lavy, 121 Idaho 842, 845, 828 P.2d 871, 874 (1992); Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014 (Ct.App. 1991). If the original sentence was not excessive when imposed, the appellant must demonstrate that it is excessive in light of new or additional information presented with the motion to reduce. Id.; State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). Brumfield presented no new information with his Rule 35 motion and only asked that his sentence be reduced to be consistent with that imposed on his co-defendant.

  6. State v. Thomas

    133 Idaho 682 (Idaho Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 16 times

    In cases such as this, where the original sentence was reasonable and not excessive, the defendant must show that the sentence is now excessive in light of new or additional information included with the Rule 35 motion. Cottrell, 132 Idaho at 187, 968 P.2d at 1096; State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). If the defendant does not make such a showing, then we are unable to say that the denial of the Rule 35 motion was an abuse of discretion. Id.

  7. State v. Olivera

    131 Idaho 628 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 10 times

    State v. Brydon, 121 Idaho 890, 892, 828 P.2d 919, 921 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct.App. 1987). If the sentence is not excessive when imposed, the defendant must show that it is excessive in view of new or additional information presented with the motion to reduce the sentence. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992); State v. Caldwell, 119 Idaho 281, 284, 805 P.2d 487, 490 (Ct.App. 1991). We review the trial court's decision applying the same factors used in determining whether the original sentence was unreasonable.

  8. State v. Brown

    949 P.2d 1072 (Idaho Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 2 times

    In the absence of such a showing, we cannot say that denial of the motion represents an abuse of discretion. State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). As noted above, we have reviewed the record and found an abundance of evidence which supports the district court's imposition of a life sentence with thirty years fixed.

  9. State v. Williams

    126 Idaho 39 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994)   Cited 18 times
    Stating that a court may "suspend further execution of the judgment pursuant to Section 19–2601"

    State v. Schorzman, 122 Idaho 201, 203, 832 P.2d 1136, 1138 (Ct.App. 1992). State v. Springer, 122 Idaho 544, 545, 835 P.2d 1355, 1356 (Ct.App. 1992). Williams bears the burden of showing that the trial court abused its sentencing discretion, in light of the primary sentencing objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.