1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40449

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DONALD JOE JAY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 359

Filed: February 7, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with three years 

determinate, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed; order denying 

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

Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Donald Joe Jay pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine. 

Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Jay to a unified term of seven years, 

with three years determinate. Jay appealed his sentence and filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 

motion for reduction of his sentence. The district court denied the motion, and Jay filed an 

amended appeal to include the denial of his Rule 35 motion. On appeal, Jay contends 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. 
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 Jay’s Rule 35 motion. A 

motion for reduction of sentence under 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, Jay’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order 

denying Jay’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.