State of Idaho v. Michael Thomas Kawika Baltunado

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51528

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 9, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL THOMAS KAWIKA ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BALTUNADO, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, 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, affirmed;
denial of I.C.R. 35(b) motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Michael Thomas Kawika Baltunado pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance,
Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The
district court imposed a unified term of seven years with three years determinate. Baltunado filed
an Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b) motion, which the district court denied. Baltunado appeals asserting
that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his
I.C.R. 35(b) 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 Baltunado’s Rule 35(b) 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 Baltunado’s Rule 35(b) motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion
has been shown.
Therefore, Baltunado’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Baltunado’s Rule 35(b) motion, are affirmed.

2