Court Opinion

ID: 9394260
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-12 20:03:45.943077+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:58.290798
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 50225

 STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )
                                                 )   Filed: May 12, 2023
        Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )
                                                 )   Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
 v.                                              )
                                                 )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
 JEFFREY SCOTT HANSEN,                           )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                 )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
        Defendant-Appellant.                     )
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Payette
       County. Hon. Kiley Stuchlik, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of eight years, for lewd conduct with a child under sixteen,
       affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
       Jeffrey Scott Hansen pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen. I.C. § 18-
1508. The district court sentenced Hansen to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of eight years. Hansen filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court
denied. Hansen appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court erred in
denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.

                                                 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same
conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App.
2020). 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 Hansen’s Rule 35 motion. A
motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 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). Upon review of the record, including any new information
submitted with Hansen’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
        Therefore, Hansen’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Hansen’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

                                                 2