1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 45303 & 45304

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TODD AUSTIN HOGAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 358

Filed: February 15, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Steven Hippler and Jason D. Scott, District Judges. 

Judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of three years for possession of 

a controlled substance and judgment of conviction and concurrent determinate 

sentences of one and one-half years for burglary and forgery, affirmed; orders 

denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson, 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 

In Docket No. 45303, Todd Austin Hogan pled guilty to possession of a controlled 

substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. 

The district court sentenced Hogan to a determinate term of three years. 

In Docket No. 45304, Hogan pled guilty to burglary, I.C. § 18-1401, and forgery, 

I.C. § 18-3601. In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The district 

court sentenced Hogan to concurrent determinate terms of one and one-half years. The district 
2

court also ordered that Hogan’s sentences run consecutive to his possession of a controlled 

substance sentence in Docket No. 45303. Hogan filed I.C.R 35 motions for reduction of his 

sentences, which the district court denied. Hogan appeals in these consolidated cases.

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 Hogan’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). In conducting our review of the grant 

or denial of a Rule 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, Hogan’s judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s orders

denying Hogan’s Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.