Opinion ID: 2588249
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant's motion for a reduction of his sentence?

Text: A motion to reduce an otherwise lawful sentence under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 is a plea for leniency. State v. Wright, 134 Idaho 73, 996 P.2d 292 (2000). The decision of whether to grant a plea for leniency is in the sound discretion of the sentencing court and is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654, 978 P.2d 214 (1999). If the initial sentence was not excessive when imposed, the appellant must show on appeal that it is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently presented to the sentencing court in support of the motion to reduce the sentence. On appeal we examine the record before us, including evidence presented in connection with the motion, to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant the leniency requested. State v. Lavy, 121 Idaho 842, 828 P.2d 871 (1992). In support of his motion to reduce his sentence, Defendant only offered two documents prepared by the Idaho Department of Correction showing that two other district judges had sentenced two other defendants to a retained jurisdiction. The documents do not show the crimes for which the other two defendants were sentenced, nor do they show any facts or circumstances surrounding those defendants or their crimes. The two documents were apparently offered by the Defendant to support an argument that if those two judges sentenced those two defendants to a retained jurisdiction, the judge in this case should have sentenced the Defendant to a retained jurisdiction. Even if the circumstances regarding those two defendants were similar to this case, the fact that those two defendants were sentenced to a retained jurisdiction would not show that it was an abuse of discretion not to sentence Strand to a retained jurisdiction. On appeal, Defendant states that he is unable to present a cogent argument in relation to the new information offered. Being unable to argue that this new information should have caused the district court to grant leniency, the Defendant simply argues that his sentence was excessive as initially imposed. As we have decided above, the sentence was not excessive. Therefore, the Defendant has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the Defendant leniency.