State of Idaho v. Kenneth Lee Watkins

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49861

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 19, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KENNETH LEE WATKINS, ) 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. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 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
Kenneth Lee Watkins pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho Code
§ 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court
imposed a unified forty-year sentence, with twenty-five years determinate. Watkins filed an Idaho
Criminal Rule 35 motion. Watkins requested the court to reduce the determinate portion of his
sentence and add that time to the indeterminate portion of his sentence. Following a hearing, the
district court denied the I.C.R. 35 motion. Watkins appeals.
A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 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
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 information submitted with Watkins’ I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion
has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Watkins’ I.C.R. 35 motion is
affirmed.

2