STATE OF IDAHO v. DANIEL McDONNELL

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50173 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: July 12, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED DANIEL McDONNELL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for a 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 Daniel McDonnell pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37- 2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced McDonnell to a unified sentence of four years with two years determinate. McDonnell filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. McDonnell appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his 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). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with McDonnell’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying McDonnell’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.