State of Idaho v. Tyler L. Williams

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51029

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 30, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TYLER L. WILLIAMS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez
Perce County. Hon. Mark T. Monson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed; 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; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Tyler L. Williams pled guilty to felony driving under the influence (previously found guilty
of a prior felony within 15 years). Idaho Code § 18-8005(9). The district court imposed a unified
sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Williams filed an
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Williams
appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and
denying his I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence.

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 Williams’ I.C.R. 35 motion. 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, 144 Idaho
201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new or additional
information submitted with Williams’ I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has
been shown.
Therefore, Williams’ judgment of conviction and sentence and the district court’s order
denying Williams’ I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.

2