Court Opinion

ID: 4227904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-12 18:07:52.868609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:42:55.404437
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 45072

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 660
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: December 12, 2017
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
JEREMY JOHN LOPEZ,                              )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of two years, for grand theft by possession of stolen
       property, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of
       sentence, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds,
       Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
       Jeremy John Lopez pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property.
I.C. §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407, 18-2407(1), and 18-2409. The district court sentenced Lopez to a
unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Lopez filed an
I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Lopez 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 Lopez’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, including any new information submitted with Lopez’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude
no abuse of discretion has been shown.
        Therefore, Lopez’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Lopez’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

                                                     2