State of Idaho v. Jesse Dean George

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52080

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 24, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JESSE DEAN GEORGE, ) 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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Jesse Dean George pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c) and misdemeanor destruction of evidence, I.C. § 18-2603. For the felony, the
district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of incarceration
of two years. The court ordered credit for time served for the misdemeanor. George filed an Idaho
Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. George appeals.
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
an I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or

1
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 George’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying George’s I.C.R. 35 motion
is affirmed.

2