State of Idaho v. Lynn Lewis Schwab

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50577

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 11, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
LYNN LEWIS SCHWAB, ) 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. Michael J. Reardon, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Lynn Lewis Schwab pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. Idaho Code §§ 18-
8004, -8005(9). The district court imposed a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of
confinement of one and one-half years. Schwab filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which
the district court denied. Schwab appeals.
Mindful that he did not provide any new information in support of his Rule 35 motion,
Schwab 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. Allbee, 115 Idaho

1
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
Schwab’s Rule 35 motion was presented, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, the district court’s order denying Schwab’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

2