Court Opinion

ID: 2824027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-08-11 04:26:06.708538+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:31:11.997532
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                      Docket No. 42460

STATE OF IDAHO,                                )   2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 578
                                               )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                   )   Filed: August 5, 2015
                                               )
v.                                             )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                               )
SALVADOR TORRES ARIAS,                         )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                               )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                    )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                               )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of twenty years, with
       minimum periods of confinement of seven years, for two counts of trafficking in
       methamphetamine, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of
       sentences, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
       Salvador Torres Arias pled guilty to two counts of trafficking in methamphetamine. I.C.
§ 37-2732B(a)(4)(a). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The
district court sentenced Arias to concurrent unified terms of twenty years, with minimum periods
of confinement of seven years. Arias filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Arias appeals.

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

                                                     2