State v. Reid

• Decision Date: 27 September 2022
• Docket Number: 49250
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BYRON BUFF REID, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
BYRON BUFF REID, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 49250

Court of Appeals of Idaho

September 27, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b) motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

HUSKEY, Judge

Byron Buff Reid appeals from the district court's order denying his Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b) motion. Reid argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion by potentially confusing his case with another case, by not providing him time to supplement the motion or holding a hearing, and by basing its decision on an allegedly unsupported factual finding. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Reid pleaded guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol, Idaho Code §§ 188004, 18-8005(6). The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years. Reid filed an I.C.R. 35(b) motion in which he requested a hearing and stated that "in addition to a written statement and/or testimony from Mr. Reid, other evidence may include documentation and testimony from other individuals in support of this

1

request." Reid provided no new information with the motion, but requested a hearing to present oral argument and evidence in support of his I.C.R. 35(b) motion. The district court found "Reid entirely fails to state what that testimony might be" and "gives this Court no idea of what his relevant evidence at [a] Rule 35 hearing would be." Further, the court found that "because Reid has completely failed to give any indication of any facts that would support his claim, his I.C.R. 35 motion must be denied due to that failure alone." The district court denied the I.C.R. 35(b) motion and request for a hearing. Reid appeals.

II.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

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). When a trial court's discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the lower court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018).

III.

ANALYSIS

Reid first argues that "to the extent that the court was confusing this case with another case, Mr. Reid submits that the district court did not reach its conclusion through an exercise of reason." The sentence at issue from the district court's denial of Reid's I.C.R. 35(b) motion is "the Court has reviewed Vandenberg's Rule 35 motion, the Court has re-reviewed the minutes of the November 18, 2020, sentencing hearing and has re-reviewed the pre-sentence report and all other materials reviewed at sentencing."

To the...