State of Idaho v. Andrew Ross Chambers

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49961

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 12, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANDREW ROSS CHAMBERS, ) 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. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of fifteen years, with a
minimum period of confinement of ten years , for attempted strangulation and
aggravated battery; twenty-five years with ten years determinate for second
degree kidnapping, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of
sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford,
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
Andrew Ross Chambers pled guilty to attempted strangulation, aggravated battery, and
second degree kidnapping, Idaho Code §§ 18-923, 18-907, 18-4503. In exchange for his guilty
plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent sentences of
fifteen years with ten years determinate for attempted strangulation and aggravated battery and
twenty-five years with ten years determinate for second degree kidnapping. Chambers filed a

1
Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Chambers appeals asserting that the district
court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences and by denying his 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.
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 Chambers’ 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 Chambers’ Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Chambers’ judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s
order denying Chambers’ Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2