State v. Gallegos, 49724

CourtCourt of Appeals of Idaho
Writing for the CourtPER CURIAM.
PartiesSTATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JOSEPH MICHAEL GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Docket Number49724
Decision Date17 November 2022

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.

JOSEPH MICHAEL GALLEGOS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 49724

Court of Appeals of Idaho

November 17, 2022


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Joseph Michael Gallegos pleaded guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years. Gallegos filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Gallegos appeals.

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 an I.C.R. 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,

1

144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the denial of an I.C.R. 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of Gallegos's I.C.R. 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the foregoing reasons, the district court's order denying Gallegos's I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.

2

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT