Court Opinion

ID: 3214385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-06-17 18:07:59.740676+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:37:26.604796
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 43847

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 576
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: June 17, 2016
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
DAVID JAMES GILBREATH,                          )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of a controlled
       substance, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence,
       affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

                       Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
                                  and HUSKEY, Judge
                   ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       David James Gilbreath pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c). The district court sentenced Gilbreath to a unified term of seven years with one
and one-half years determinate. Gilbreath filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Gilbreath appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by
imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his I.C.R. 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.

                                                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 Gilbreath’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, Gilbreath’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Gilbreath’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

                                                     2