Court Opinion

ID: 3165400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-23 22:03:31.361014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:58:19.862449
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 43032

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 762
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: December 23, 2015
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
DAVID ALLAN ISER,                               )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
       of confinement of nine years, for felony domestic violence, affirmed; order
       denying I.C.R. 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; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
       David Allan Iser entered an Alford1 plea of guilty to felony domestic violence. Idaho
Code § 18-918(2), 18-903(a). The district court sentenced Iser to a unified term of ten years with
nine years determinate. Iser filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Iser
appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing and excessive sentence
and by denying his Rule 35 motion.

1
       See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
                                                1
        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.
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 Iser’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, Iser’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Iser’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

                                                     2