IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 40203
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 763
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: December 18, 2012
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
ORION CLAYTON M. L. SHAFF, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge.
Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben Patrick McGreevy,
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; LANSING, Judge;
and GUTIERREZ, Judge
PER CURIAM
Orion Clayton M. L. Shaff was convicted of rape, Idaho Code § 18-6101(1). The district
court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years with three and one-half years determinate.
Shaff filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Shaff appeals
from the denial of his Rule 35 motion.
A Rule 35 motion is a request for leniency which is addressed to the sound discretion of
the sentencing 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, 159 P.3d 838 (2007). Our focus on review is upon the nature of the offense and the
1
character of the offender. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1184 (Ct. App.
1982). Where a sentence is not illegal, the appellant must show that it is unreasonably harsh in
light of the primary objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence,
rehabilitation and retribution. State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 405
(1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982).
Having reviewed the record, including any new information submitted with Shaff’s
Rule 35 motion, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion.
Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Shaff’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.
2
State v. Orion Clayton M.L. Shaff
Combined Opinion