State v. Thruston

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RYAN MATTHEW THRUSTON…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Jul 22, 2014

Docket No. 41381 (Idaho Ct. App. Jul. 22, 2014)

Opinion

Docket No. 41381 2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 636

07-22-2014

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RYAN MATTHEW THRUSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan, District Judge.

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

GUITIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Ryan Matthew Thruston was convicted of injury to a child, Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a two-year determinate term and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Thruston's sentence. Thruston filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Thruston appeals from the order 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). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Thruston's Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Thruston's Rule 35 motion is affirmed.