State v. Storm

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45496

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 461
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: May 18, 2018
)
v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
)
RICKIE STORM, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Steven Hippler, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three years, for forgery affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Rickie Storm pled guilty to forgery, Idaho Code § 18-3601. In exchange for his guilty
plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence,
with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Storm filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35
motion, which the district court denied. Storm appeals.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established.
See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State

1
v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103
Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence,
we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387,
391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot
say that the district court abused its discretion.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Storm’s 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. 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
any new information submitted with Storm’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Storm’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Storm’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2