1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44231

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GARRETT RANDOLPH BOWSER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 503

Filed: June 27, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two years, for leaving the scene of an injury 

accident, affirmed; Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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; MELANSON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Garrett Randolph Bowser was found guilty of leaving the scene of an injury accident, 

Idaho Code § 18-8007, and striking a fixture, I.C. § 49-1304. The district court imposed a 

unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for leaving 

the scene of an injury accident and a concurrent 180-day jail sentence for striking a fixture. 

Bowser filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district 

court denied. Bowser appeals, contending that his sentence for leaving the scene of an injury 
2

accident is excessive and that the district court abused its discretion in denying his Rule 35 

motion.

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

denying Bowser’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.