State of Idaho v. Ashton Ray Salerno

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52574

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 17, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ASHTON RAY SALERNO, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bear
Lake 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; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Ashton Ray Salerno pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen years. Idaho
Code § 18-1508. The district court sentenced Salerno to a unified term of twenty years with ten
years determinate. Salerno filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Salerno appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying this 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
a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or

1
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 Salerno’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion
has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Salerno’s I.C.R. 35 motion is
affirmed.

2