State v. Felicia Elizabeth Parsons

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39011/39012

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 743
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: December 14, 2011
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
FELICIA ELIZABETH PARSONS, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of thirty-eight years,
with a minimum period of confinement of eighteen years, for robbery, affirmed;
order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth Ann Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jason M. Gray, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
In these consolidated appeals, Felicia Elizabeth Parsons pled guilty to robbery. Idaho
Code § 18-6501. The district court sentenced Parsons to consecutive unified terms of thirty-
eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of eighteen years. Parsons filed an Idaho
Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Parsons appeals asserting that the
district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences and by denying her Rule 35
motion.
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.

1
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). 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 Parsons’s Rule 35 motion. 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 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). In conducting our review of the grant
or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for
determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740
P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of
the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Parsons’s judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Parsons’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2