State of Idaho v. Michael Lewis Wagner

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50076

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 17, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL LEWIS WAGNER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
County. Hon. Michael P. Tribe, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, 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
Michael Lewis Wagner pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. § 18-
8005(9). The district court sentenced Wagner to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum
period of confinement of six years, to run consecutively to an unrelated sentence. Wagner filed
an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Wagner appeals, arguing that the district
court erred in denying his Rule 35 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

1
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). An appeal from the denial of a Rule
35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation
of new information. Id. Because no new information in support of Wagner’s Rule 35 motion was
presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion.
For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Wagner’s Rule 35 motion is
affirmed.

2