1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45379

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TERRY RAY DALTON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 370

Filed: February 26, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Steven Hippler, District Judge. 

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

period of confinement of one and one-half years, for battery against a health care 

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

sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Terry Ray Dalton pled guilty to battery against a health care worker. Idaho Code §§ 18-

915C, 18-903. The district court sentenced Dalton to a unified term of three years with one and 

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

court denied. Dalton 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. 
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 Dalton’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, including any new information submitted with Dalton’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude 

no abuse of discretion has been shown.

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

denying Dalton’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.