From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Stephens

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Oct 15, 2014
Docket No. 41849 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 41849 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 761

10-15-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL SCOTT STEPHENS, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Nicole L. Schafer, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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 Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years, for felony driving under the influence of alcohol, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Nicole L. Schafer, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM

Michael Scott Stephens was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol. Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005. Stephens pled guilty to the enhancement, making his conviction a felony. The district court sentenced Stephens to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. Stephens filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Stephens appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his Rule 35 motion.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Stephens' Rule 35 motion. 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). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Stephens' judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court's order denying Stephens' Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Stephens

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Oct 15, 2014
Docket No. 41849 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2014)
Case details for

State v. Stephens

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL SCOTT STEPHENS…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Oct 15, 2014

Citations

Docket No. 41849 (Idaho Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2014)