1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 43310/43359

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRADLEY COLE HOLCOMB,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 423

Filed: March 9, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of life, with a minimum 

period of confinement of ten years each, for three counts of robbery, and seven 

years with two years determinate for possession of a controlled substance, 

affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Bradley Cole Holcomb pled guilty to two counts of 

robbery (Docket No. 43310), Idaho Code §§ 18-6501, 18-6503, 18-112A; one count of robbery 

and one count of possession of a controlled substance (Docket No. 43359), Idaho Code §§ 18-

6501, 18-6503, 18-112A, 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Holcomb to concurrent 

unified sentences of life with ten years determinate for each count of robbery, and seven years 

with two years determinate for possession of a controlled substance. Holcomb filed an I.C.R. 35 
2

motion, which the district court denied. Holcomb appeals asserting that the district court abused 

its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by 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 Holcomb’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, Holcomb’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s 

order denying Holcomb’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.