1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42211, 42212 & 42423

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ROBERT ALEXANDER LAWRENCE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 544

Filed: July 9, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Bonneville County. Hon. Dane H. Watkins, Jr., District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction and aggregate sentence of a unified term of thirty-five 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of eight years, for robbery, second 

degree kidnapping, three counts of burglary, and grand theft by possession of 

stolen property, affirmed; orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of 

sentences, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

In these consolidated cases, Robert Alexander Lawrence pled guilty to robbery, I.C. 

§§ 18-6501, 18-6503, and 18-112A; second degree kidnapping, I.C. §§ 18-4501 and 18-4504; 

three counts of burglary, I.C. § 18-1401; and grand theft by possession of stolen property, I.C. § 

18-2403(4) and 18-2407(1)(b)(6). In exchange for his guilty pleas, the state agreed not to file 

additional charges. The district court sentenced Lawrence to concurrent unified terms of thirty-
2

five years, with a minimum period of confinement of eight years, for robbery; twenty-five years, 

with a minimum period of confinement of eight years, for second degree kidnapping; and ten 

years, with minimum periods of confinement, for each count of burglary and grand theft by 

possession of stolen property. Lawrence filed I.C.R 35 motions for reduction of his sentences, 

which the district court denied. Lawrence 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 Lawrence’s Rule 35 motions. 

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, Lawrence’s judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s 

orders denying Lawrence’s Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.