State of Idaho v. Harry Chester Andrews, III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51514

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 17, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
HARRY CHESTER ANDREWS, III, ) 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.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-five years, with a minimum
period of confinement of twenty years, for aggravated assault on certain law
enforcement personnel with the use of a deadly weapon during the commission of
a crime, affirmed; 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; Amy J. Lavin, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Harry Chester Andrews, III, pled guilty to aggravated assault on certain law enforcement
personnel and use of a firearm or deadly weapon during the commission of a crime. I.C. §§ 18-
905 and 19-2520. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge that he is a persistent
violator was dismissed. The district court sentenced Andrews to a unified term of twenty-five
years, with a minimum period of confinement of twenty years. Andrews filed an I.C.R. 35 motion,

1
which the district court denied. Andrews appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that
the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.
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 Andrews’ 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 Andrews’ Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Andrews’ judgment of conviction and sentence and the district court’s order
denying Andrews’ Rule 35 motion are affirmed.

2