State v. Curtis, 061019 IDCCA, 46598

• Opinion Judge: PER CURIAM.
• Party Name: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL ALLEN CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant.
• Attorney: Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
• Judge Panel: Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge.
• Case Date: June 10, 2019
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL ALLEN CURTIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 46598

Court of Appeals of Idaho

June 10, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge.

Appeal from order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, dismissed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Michael Allen Curtis pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). The parties entered into a I.C.R. 11 plea agreement in which a misdemeanor charge was dismissed and the State agreed not to file a persistent violator enhancement. The parties stipulated to a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Curtis agreed to waive the right to file a "Rule 35 motion regarding the initial Judgment (except as to an illegal sentence)" and to "appeal any issues in this case, including all matters involving the plea or the sentence and any rulings made by the court." The district court sentenced Curtis to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Thereafter, Curtis filed a Rule 35 motion seeking a reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Curtis appeals, noting he is mindful of his appeal waiver but nonetheless asserting the district court erred in denying his motion for a sentence reduction.

We hold that Curtis's appellate challenge regarding his sentence has been waived by his plea agreement. See I.C.R. 11(f)(1); State v. Rodriguez, 142 Idaho 786, 787, 133 P.3d 1251, 1252 (Ct. App. 2006). Curtis's plea agreement contained a clause by which Curtis waived his right to file a Rule 35 motion and his right to appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss Curtis's appeal.