STATE OF IDAHO v. STERLING NICHOLAS McGUIRE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53000 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: March 3, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED STERLING NICHOLAS McGUIRE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Sterling Nicholas McGuire pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced McGuire to a unified term of six years with three years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Subsequently, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. McGuire filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. McGuire appeals arguing 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 McGuire’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying McGuire’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.