State of Idaho v. JIMMY JOHN PUGH

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 52722 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: May 11, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED JIMMY JOHN PUGH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Jimmy John Pugh pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c).

In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. Pursuant to a stipulation of the parties, the district court sentenced Pugh to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, to be served concurrently with another unrelated sentence.

Pugh filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Pugh appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion.

In denying the Rule 35 motion, the district court noted that Pugh stipulated to the sentence he received, considered the additional information he submitted, concluded the information was

“encouraging,” but denied the 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 Pugh’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Pugh’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.