STATE OF IDAHO v. ANDREW C. McKNIGHT-OWEN

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50348

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 15, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANDREW C. McKNIGHT-OWEN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Canyon County. Hon. Andrea L. Courtney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of eight years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years, for three counts of possession of a
controlled substance, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of
sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Justin R. Porter, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Andrew C. McKnight-Owen pled guilty to three counts of possession of a controlled
substance with the intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for his guilty
plea, an additional charge was dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent violator.
The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of eight years with three years
determinate. McKnight-Owen filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court
denied. McKnight-Owen appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by
imposing excessive sentences and by denying his I.C.R. 35 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 McKnight-Owen’s 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 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 McKnight-Owen’s Rule 35 motion, we
conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, McKnight-Owen’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district
court’s order denying McKnight-Owen’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2