State of Idaho v. Kevin John Nielsen

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50952

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 26, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KEVIN JOHN NIELSEN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reconsideration 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; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Kevin J. Nielsen pled guilty to violation of a no contact order. Idaho Code § 18-920. In
exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed a
unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Nielsen filed
an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Nielsen appeals, arguing that
the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion.
Mindful that he did not provide any new or additional information in support of his Rule
35 motion, Nielsen argues 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.

1
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, and because no new or additional information in support of
Nielsen’s Rule 35 motion was presented, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, the district court’s order denying Nielsen’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

2