Court Opinion

ID: 4194115
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-08-08 16:05:54.307251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:56.046038
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                    Docket Nos. 44541/44579

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 546
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: August 8, 2017
                                                )
v.                                              )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
                                                )
JUSTIN TYLER SAVELL,                            )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K. C. Meyer, District Judge.

       Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with five
       years determinate, for two counts of grand theft by possession, affirmed; orders
       denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction of sentences, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
       In cases consolidated for appeal, Justin Tyler Savell pled guilty to two counts of grand
theft by possession of stolen property, Idaho Code § 18-2403(4). The district court imposed
concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with five years determinate, to be served concurrently
with Savell’s sentence in a separate case. Savell filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions, which
the district court denied. Savell 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 Savell’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, Savell’s judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s orders
denying Savell’s Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.

                                                     2