49543 State v. Lockman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 49542/49543

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 10, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ZACKREE RYAN O’NEAL LOCKMAN, ) 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 Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and aggregate sentence of seven years, with four years
determinate, for two counts of eluding an officer, two counts of possession of a
controlled substance, battery on an officer, and leaving the scene of an accident;
and orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Zackree Ryan O’Neal Lockman has two cases in this consolidated appeal. In Docket
No. 49542, Lockman pled guilty to two counts of eluding an officer, Idaho Code § 49-1404(2),
possession of controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1), battery on an officer, I.C. § 18-
915(3)(a)(b), -903(3), and leaving the scene of an accident, I.C. § 49-1305. In Docket No. 49543,
Lockman pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange
for his guilty pleas, the State dismissed additional charges and agreed to recommend the court
impose concurrent sentences.

1
In Docket No. 49542, the district court imposed indeterminate five-year sentences for each
count of eluding an officer; a unified seven-year sentence, with four years determinate, for
possession of a controlled substance; an indeterminate five-year sentence for battery on an officer;
and credit for time served for the leaving the scene of an accident. In Docket No. 49543, the
district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with four years determinate, for possession
of a controlled substance. The court ordered all sentences to run concurrently. The court declined
to place Lockman on probation or retain jurisdiction. Lockman filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35
motion in each case requesting the court to reduce the determinate portions of his sentences for
possession a controlled substance to zero, which the district court denied. Lockman appeals.
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 Lockman’s Rule 35 motions.
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 Lockman’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has
been shown.
Therefore, Lockman’s judgments of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s
orders denying Lockman’s Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.

2