Opinion
Docket No. 42399 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 856
12-12-2014
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JEREMY E. THREATT, 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; Lori A. Fleming, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Timothy L. Hansen, District Judge. Order denying I.C.R. 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; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Jeremy E. Threatt pled guilty to one count of rape and one count of penetration by a foreign object. Idaho Code §§ 18-6101, 18-6608. The district court sentenced Threatt to concurrent unified sentences of twenty-five years with five years determinate. Threatt filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Threatt appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his 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. Gill, 150 Idaho 183, 186, 244 P.3d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). 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). An appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of Threatt's Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Threatt's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.