Court Opinion

ID: 891151
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 15:35:43.259766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:20.602959
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                      Docket No. 36724

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )     2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 496
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )     Filed: June 4, 2010
                                                )
v.                                              )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
MISTY M. CANADA,                                )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Canyon County. Hon. Bradley S. Ford, District Judge.

       Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence,
       affirmed.

       Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

                     Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge
                                 and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Misty M. Canada was convicted of felony driving under the influence of alcohol, Idaho
Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005. The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence with three
years determinate to run concurrently with a previously imposed sentence. Canada filed an
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Canada appeals from the denial
of her Rule 35 motion.
       A Rule 35 motion is a request for leniency which is addressed to the sound discretion of
the sentencing 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

                                               1
subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho
201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007). Our focus on review is upon the nature of the offense and the
character of the offender. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1184 (Ct. App.
1982). Where a sentence is not illegal, the appellant must show that it is unreasonably harsh in
light of the primary objective of protecting society and the related goals of deterrence,
rehabilitation and retribution. State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 405
(1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982).
       Having reviewed the record, including the new information submitted with Canada’s
Rule 35 motion, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of the motion.
Accordingly, the district court’s order denying Canada’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.

                                                2