State of Idaho v. Ian Hunter Burgess

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50866

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 26, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
IAN HUNTER BURGESS, ) 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. Susie Jensen, District Judge.

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; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Ian Hunter Burgess pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-1401. In exchange for his guilty
plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Burgess to a unified term
of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district court retained
jurisdiction and sent Burgess to participate in the rider program. Prior to completion of his rider,
the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Burgess filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, and the district court
held a hearing on the motion but denied it. Burgess appeals, arguing that the district court erred
in denying his Rule 35 motion.

1
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 or additional information submitted with Burgess’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse
of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Burgess’s Rule 35
motion is affirmed.

2