Court Opinion

ID: 3063370
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-10-14 21:04:52.693915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:49:36.811874
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 42893

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 656
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: October 14, 2015
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
FRED MELVIN WHITMAN, JR.,                       )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
       County. Hon. Timothy Hansen, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum term
       of confinement of three years, for felony malicious injury to property, affirmed;
       order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                    Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                  and GRATTON, Judge
                   ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Fred Melvin Whitman, Jr., pled guilty to felony malicious injury to property, Idaho Code
§ 18-7001(2). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed, including an
allegation that he was a persistent violator. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five
years, with a minimum term of confinement of three years. Whitman filed an Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Whitman 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.

                                                1
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 Whitman’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, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
        Therefore, Whitman’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Whitman’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

                                                     2