IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 44728
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 597
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: September 26, 2017
)
v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
)
JENNIFER M. SEVERIN, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Teton County. Hon. Gregory W. Moeller, District Judge.
Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of
sentence, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 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 HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Jennifer M. Severin pled guilty to one count of domestic battery with traumatic injury,
Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a), 18-918(2). The district court imposed a unified sentence of six years,
with a minimum period of confinement of two years, and retained jurisdiction. The district court
later relinquished jurisdiction. Severin filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of
sentence, which the district court denied. Severin 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
1
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 Severin’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Severin’s
Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
2