State v. Taylor

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KILLEAN DOUGLAS TAYLOR…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Aug 29, 2012

Docket No. 39430 (Idaho Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 39430 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 614

08-29-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KILLEAN DOUGLAS TAYLOR, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,

Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Killean Douglas Taylor pled guilty to burglary. Idaho Code §§ 18-1401, 18-1403. The district court sentenced Taylor to a unified term of five years, with two years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. However, prior to the expiration of the period of retained jurisdiction the district court relinquished jurisdiction and executed Taylor's original sentence. Taylor thereafter filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Taylor now appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 35 motion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal 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 Taylor's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Taylor's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.