State of Idaho v. Russell Lee Haddox

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49741

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 10, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RUSSELL LEE HADDOX, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge.

Order granting I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Russell Lee Haddox was found guilty of attempted strangulation, I.C. § 18-923, and
domestic battery, I.C. §§ 903 and 18-918(2). The district court sentenced Haddox to concurrent,
unified terms of seven years, with minimum periods of confinement of three years. Haddox filed
an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court granted, reducing Haddox’s sentences to concurrent,

1
unified terms of five years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years. 1 Haddox appeals,
arguing that the district court should have further reduced his sentences.
Initially, we note that a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a Rule 35 motion will not be
disturbed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State v. Villarreal, 126 Idaho 277, 281, 882
P.2d 444, 448 (Ct. App. 1994). 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, 822 P.2d 1011 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (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). Since the district court later
modified Haddox’s sentences pursuant to his Rule 35 motion, we will only review Haddox’s
modified sentences for an abuse of discretion. See State v. McGonigal, 122 Idaho 939, 940-41,
842 P.2d 275, 276-77 (1992).
Haddox has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the district
court in failing to further reduce Haddox’s sentences. See State v. Cotton, 100 Idaho 573, 577,
602 P.2d 71, 75 (1979). Haddox has failed to show such an abuse of discretion. Accordingly, the
order of the district court granting Haddox’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

1
The oral pronouncement at the hearing on Haddox’s Rule 35 motion indicates that the
district court intended “to modify it” and take “a year off both the indeterminate and determinate
portion” of his sentence, thus “modify[ing] his parole eligibility up a year.” The order granting
his Rule 35 motion states that his sentence was reduced for attempted stalking. However, it is the
oral pronouncement of sentence that is controlling. See State v. Allen, 144 Idaho 875, 877-78,
172 P.3d 1150, 1152-53 (Ct. App. 2007). Therefore, we view Haddox’s modified sentences to
both be concurrent, unified terms of five years, with minimum periods of confinement of two
years.

2