State v. Moorefield

1
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 53598
STATE OF IDAHO,
Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
CHRISTOPHER T. MOOREFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Filed: October 14, 2026
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Ada Judicial District, State of Idaho, Fourth
County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.
Judgment of Conviction and unified sentence of forty years, with a minimum period
of confinement of twelve years, for lewd conduct with a child under the age of
sixteen years, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction
of sentence, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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; FLEMING, Judge
and PETTY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Christopher T. Moorefield pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under the age of sixteen
years. Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court sentenced Moorefield to a unified sentence of forty years, with a minimum period
of confinement of twelve years.1 Moorefield filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court
1 	This sentence was ordered to run consecutively to “[Moorefield’s] other sentence.”

2
denied. Moorefield appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court erred
in denying his I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence.
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 Moorefield’s I.C.R. 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 an I.C.R. 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 Moorefield’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion
has been shown.
Therefore, Moorefield’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Moorefield’s I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.