State of Idaho v. Bill Ernest Davenport

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 50100 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 11, 2023 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED BILL ERNEST DAVENPORT, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Bill Ernest Davenport pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen. I.C. § 18- 1508. The district court sentenced Davenport to a unified term of twenty-one years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Davenport filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. “Mindful” that he submitted no new or additional information, Davenport appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying his 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 Davenport’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Davenport’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.