1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42983

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BENJAMAN T. HINES JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 716

Filed: November 16, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and sentence; and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenevieve C. Swinford, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Benjaman T. Hines Jr. entered an Alford1plea to possession of a controlled substance, 

methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified seven-year 

sentence, with two years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Hines on a 365-day 

period of retained jurisdiction. Prior to completing his retained jurisdiction, Hines filed two

 

1

See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 
2

separate Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions. The district court denied both motions.

2

 Hines

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 

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 Hines’ I.C.R. 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 an I.C.R. 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). In conducting our review of the grant 

or denial of an I.C.R. 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used 

for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 

740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review 

of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Hines’ judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order 

denying Hines’ I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.

 

2 Hines only appeals from the first denial of his I.C.R. 35 motion.