Opinion ID: 1158453
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to i.c.r. 35 was properly denied

Text: A motion to reduce sentence is essentially a plea for leniency, and the decision thereon is vested in the sound discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Lavy, 121 Idaho 842, 845, 828 P.2d 871, 874 (1992) (citing State v. Martinez, 113 Idaho 535, 746 P.2d 994 (1987)); State v. Arambula, 97 Idaho 627, 550 P.2d 130 (1976). In reviewing a sentence under Rule 35, the same four criteria are applied as when reviewing the sentence for reasonableness. State v. Martinez, 113 Idaho 535, 536, 746 P.2d 994, 995 (1987). At the outset the State argues that the trial court lost jurisdiction to reduce the sentence because it did not do so within 120 days from the date of entry of the conviction. I.C.R. 35. The record indicates that the defendant was sentenced in March 1993, with the ruling on the Rule 35 motion occurring in December 1993. While the trial court did exceed 120 days in entering a ruling, we have previously held that a trial court need not rule within 120 days or risk losing jurisdiction, and instead may have a reasonable time after the 120 days expires within which to rule. State v. Matteson, 123 Idaho 622, 627, 851 P.2d 336, 341 (1993); State v. Chapman, 121 Idaho 351, 825 P.2d 74 (1992). The Court of Appeals has held that a delay in ruling in order to receive additional information is not unreasonable. State v. Brydon, 121 Idaho 890, 828 P.2d 919 (Ct.App.1992). Here, the record demonstrates that the trial court delayed ruling on the motion in order to give Book time to gather additional information, and then ruled shortly after the information was received. Thus, any delay in ruling was reasonable and the trial court did not lose jurisdiction to rule on the motion. At Book's hearing on the Rule 35 motion, no new arguments were presented in support of the motion, but rather Book again asserted his sentence was excessive in light of Jeannie's. The trial court reviewed the record from the original sentencing, and once again considered the objectives of criminal punishment when denying the Rule 35 motion. Having found the original sentence reasonable, and with no arguments to the contrary presented at the hearing on the Rule 35 motion, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.