State of Idaho v. Robert Andrew Sands

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50642

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 29, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ROBERT ANDREW SANDS, ) 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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 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
Robert Andrew Sands pled guilty to felony injury to children. Idaho Code § 18-1501(1).
The district court imposed a sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of three
years. After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed
Sands on probation. Subsequently, Sands admitted to violating the terms of probation, and the
district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence.
Sands filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion requesting a reduction in the indeterminate portion
of his sentence, which the district court denied. Sands 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

1
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 or additional information submitted with
Sands’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the
district court’s order denying Sands’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

2