1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39692

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JERRY LEWIS WILLIAMS, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 696

Filed: October 31, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. John P. Luster, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent sentences of a unified term of seven years, 

with three years determinate, for grand theft by unauthorized control and a unified 

term of four years, with one year determinate, for forgery, affirmed; order 

denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, 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; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jerry Lewis Williams, Jr. pled guilty to grand theft by unauthorized control, Idaho Code 

§§ 18-2403(3), 18-2407(1)(b), and forgery, Idaho Code § 18-3601. The district court sentenced 

Williams to concurrent sentences of a unified term of seven years, with three years determinate, 

for the grand theft and a unified term of four years, with one year determinate, for the forgery. 

Williams filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Williams

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 Williams’ Rule 35 motion. A 

motion for reduction of sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 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, Williams’ judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order 

denying Williams’ Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.