State of Idaho v. Trevor Bowmer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51536

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 16, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TREVOR BOWMER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

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

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years with a minimum period
of confinement of three years for possession of a controlled substance, and a
concurrent 180-day sentence for resisting and obstructing, affirmed; order denying
I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; John C. McKinney, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Trevor Bowmer pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance and resisting and
obstructing officers, Idaho Code §§ 37-2732(c)(1), 18-705. In exchange for his guilty plea,
additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of seven years with
three years determinate for possession of a controlled substance and a concurrent 180 days for
resisting and obstructing officers. Bowmer filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Bowmer appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by
imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his Rule 35 motion.

1
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See
State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v.
Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho
565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we
consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391
(2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same
conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App.
2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Bowmer’s Rule 35 motion. 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 information
submitted with Bowmer’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Bowmer’s judgment of conviction and sentences and the district court’s order
denying Bowmer’s Rule 35 motion are affirmed.

2