State of Idaho v. Kenny Dean Meligan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51194

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 8, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KENNY DEAN MELIGAN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Shoshone County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
On August 29, 2022, Kenny Dean Meligan pled guilty to two counts of possession of a
controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, the State
agreed to dismiss other charges in an unrelated case. The district court imposed concurrent
sentences of four years with two years determinate.
On January 23, 2023, Meligan filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion asking the district
court for a reduction in his sentence or a retained jurisdiction. The motion contained a request for
a hearing. However, it was not until September 6, 2023, that counsel for Meligan requested a date
for a hearing on the motion. The district court had been unaware of the motion until that time.
The district court did not believe it had jurisdiction to rule on the I.C.R. 35(b) motion due to the

1
request for hearing more than three months after the deadline for filing of the I.C.R. 35 (b) motion.
A trial court has a reasonable period of time to rule on a timely filed Rule 35 motion before it loses
jurisdiction. State v. Hall, 170 Idaho 640, 646, 515 P.3d 727, 733 (2022). Nonetheless, the district
court reviewed the materials submitted with the motion and the record and determined that the
motion for reduction of sentence lacked merit. Meligan filed a notice of appeal from the denial of
his Rule 35 motion, challenging the decision of the district court to deny his Rule 35 motion.
Assuming the district court retained jurisdiction to rule on the motion, no error has been
shown. 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 Meligan’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Meligan’s Rule 35 motion
is affirmed.

2