Opinion
Docket No. 39723 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 751
11-30-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MELONY FAY STITES, Defendant-Appellant.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge.
Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of
sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge
PER CURIAM
Melony Fay Stites pled guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho Code §§ 18-901(b), 18-905(a), and use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, I.C. § 19-2520. The district court sentenced Stites to a unified term of ten years, with two years determinate; however, the district court suspended Stites' sentence and placed her on probation under specified conditions, including that she serve 365 days in county jail, less credit for time served, and complete programing. Stites filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion and a motion for early release and/or to modify the terms of probation, which were both denied by the district court. Stites now appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in denying her Rule 35 motion.
A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 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 the new information submitted with Stites' Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Stites' Rule 35 motion is affirmed.