State of Idaho v. William Lee Henneman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50429

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 2, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
WILLIAM LEE HENNEMAN, ) 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. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years, for failure to register as a sex offender, affirmed;
order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred,
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
William Lee Henneman pled guilty to failure to register as a sex offender, Idaho Code §§
18-8309, 18-8311(2). In exchange for his guilty plea, a persistent violator allegation was
dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years with four years
determinate. Henneman filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, requesting probation or a
reduction in his sentence, which the district court denied. Henneman appeals asserting that the
district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by denying his Rule 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 Henneman’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 Henneman’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Henneman’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s
order denying Henneman’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2