1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37511

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER DANIEL DARR,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 355

Filed: February 10, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Canyon County. Hon. Gregory M. Culet, District Judge. 

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

period of confinement of ten years, for robbery, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 

motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Russell J. Spencer, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Christopher Daniel Darr appeals from his judgment of conviction and unified sentence of 

thirty years, with a minimum period of confinement of ten years, for robbery, Idaho Code §§ 18-

6501, 18-6502, 18-6503. He also appeals the denial of his Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for 

reduction of the sentence. We affirm.

Where a sentence is within the statutory limits, it will not be disturbed on appeal absent 

an abuse of the sentencing court’s discretion. State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331 

(1989). We will not conclude on review that the sentencing court abused its discretion unless the 

sentence is unreasonable under the facts of the case. State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 
2

482 (1992). In evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence, we consider the nature of the offense 

and the character of the offender, applying our well-established standards of review. 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, 650 

P.2d 707 (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).

A motion for reduction of a 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, 159 P.3d 838 (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 447, 680 P.2d 869. 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in imposing Darr’s sentence nor in denying Darr’s Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence. The judgment of conviction and sentence, and the order denying Darr’s Rule 35 

motion, are affirmed.