1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43951

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CAMERON EVERETT POST,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 770

Filed: November 7, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

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. 

Judgment of conviction and unified consecutive sentences of ten years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of three, for involuntary manslaughter and a unified five year 

sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for use of a deadly 

weapon in the commission of a crime, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim 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 GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Cameron Everett Post pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter, Idaho Code § 18-

4006(2), and use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a crime, I.C. § 19-2520. The district 

court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with two years determinate, and a consecutive unified 

five-year sentence, with two years determinate, respectively. Post filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 

35 motion, which the district court denied. Post 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. 
2

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 Post’s 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.

Although Post argues he provided sufficient additional information justifying a reduction 

of his sentence, all the information was considered, and rejected, by the district court as a basis to 

reduce Post’s sentence. The court noted that most of the information provided in the I.C.R. 35 

motion was a restatement of information presented at sentencing. The court recognized that 

while the amount of restitution was not fixed at the time of sentencing, the court anticipated 

restitution would be high and thus, did not impose a fine. The district court noted that while 

financial hardship is frequently visited upon an incarcerated defendant’s family it was not, in this 

case, and appropriate basis justifying a reduction of the sentence. The other additional 

information was Post’s placement in the prison system which the court also found did not 

warrant a reduction in the sentence. Given all the information considered by the district court, 

the court did not err in declining to reduce Post’s sentence. 

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

denying Post’s I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.