(Download) "State Idaho v. Steven L. Hassett" by Court of Appeals of Idaho No. 16176 # Book PDF Kindle ePub Free

August 04, 2021

eBook details

Title: State Idaho v. Steven L. Hassett
Author : Court of Appeals of Idaho No. 16176
Release Date : January 20, 1986
Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
Pages : * pages
Size : 55 KB

Description

Steven Hassett pled guilty to first degree burglary and received an indeterminate seven-year sentence. After two months in the Idaho State Correctional Institution, Hassett moved to reduce his sentence under I.C.R. 35. The district court denied the motion without a hearing, and Hassett appeals. The sole issue on appeal is whether the district court abused its discretion in denying Hassett's Rule 35 motion. We affirm. Our standards for reviewing a Rule 35 motion are well-settled. A motion to reduce a legally imposed sentence is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court. State v. Arambula, 97 Idaho 627, 550 P.2d 130 (1976); State v. Goldman, 109 Idaho 1031, 712 P.2d 732 (Ct.App.1985). Such a motion is essentially a plea for leniency which may be granted if a sentence originally imposed was, for any reason, unduly severe. State v. Russell, 109 Idaho 723, 710 P.2d 633 (Ct.App.1985). As we noted in State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 680 P.2d 869 (Ct.App.1984), the criteria for evaluating a court's refusal to reduce a sentence are the same as those applied in determining whether the original sentence was excessive. See State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1982). The Toohill criteria are well-known and need not be repeated here. The Judge may consider facts presented at the original sentencing as well as any new information concerning the defendant's rehabilitative progress while in confinement. State v. Torres, 107 Idaho 895, 693 P.2d 1097 (Ct.App.1984). On appeal, we will examine the record of the original sentencing proceeding, together with information subsequently presented in support of the Rule 35 motion. State v. Araiza, 109 Idaho 188, 706 P.2d 77 (Ct.App.1985); State v. Yarbrough, 106 Idaho 545, 681 P.2d 1020 (Ct.App.1984).