State v. James Howard Brown

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 39365 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 603 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: August 24, 2012 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) JAMES HOWARD BROWN, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge. Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Spencer J. Hahn, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM James Howard Brown pled guilty to forgery. I.C. §§ 18-3601, 18-3606. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed and the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Brown was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Brown to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Brown filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Brown appeals. 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 1 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 Brown’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Brown’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed. 2