State of Idaho v. Kamryn Nicole Riordan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52118

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 9, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KAMRYN NICOLE RIORDAN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Cody L. Brower, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Kamryn Nicole Riordan pled guilty to grand theft by embezzlement, Idaho Code
§ 18-2403(2)(b).1 In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district
court sentenced Riordan to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement
of three years; however, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Riordan on probation
for three years. Subsequently, Riordan admitted to violating the terms of probation, and the district
court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence but retained

1
This sentence was ordered to run concurrently to the sentences in Riordan’s two other
unrelated cases.

1
jurisdiction. Riordan filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Riordan appeals.
A motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 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).
Upon review of the record, including any new or additional information submitted with
Riordan’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the
district court’s order denying Riordan’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

2