Court Opinion

ID: 9564904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:11:07.245742+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:14.720027
License: Public Domain

SWANSTROM, Judge, concurring in parts I, II and III, but dissenting as to part IV.
This is not a Torres situation where the judge hearing the Rule 35 motion mistakenly believed he was constrained to consider only the information which had been available to the sentencing judge. Here, six days after he had been sentenced, Bonaparte, through new counsel, filed a motion *583for reduction of sentence, the motion, the sentencing judge was offered the testimony of a jailer regarding Bonaparte’s good behavior in jail and testimony from relatives concerning the effect' of alcohol on his behavior. This information was not new; it was available at the time’ of sentencing. Bonaparte' has not shown any reason why it was not presented earlier when other witnesses testified in aggravation and mitigation of the sentence. Moreover, the information added little, if anything, to that which the judge had at the time of sentencing. The effect of alcohol on Bonaparte’s behavior was obvious. Treatment for this problem was discussed in the presentence report and at the sentencing hearing. The jailer submitted a letter which was given to the judge before the sentencing. Testimony about BonaIn support of parte’s good behavior in jail would hardly give the judge any new sentencing dimension or alternative. Faced with this, the judge simply declined to go through the time-wasting exercise of a hearing. This decision was not based on a mistaken notion of the law or of discretion. Rather, the decision shows deliberate use of the discretionary power allowed by I.C.R. 35. Because there was no abuse or misapplication of that discretion, I would affirm the order denying the motion to reduce the sentence.