IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43766

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ELIZABETH DIANE COFFMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 768

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of a controlled substance, felony, 

affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, 

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

Elizabeth Diane Coffman pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, felony, 

Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with one 

and one-half years determinate. Coffman filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the 

district court denied. Coffman 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 Coffman’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.

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

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