State of Idaho v. William Andrew Lavatta

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50682

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 27, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
WILLIAM ANDREW LAVATTA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred,
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
William Andrew Lavatta pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c)(1), and providing false information, I.C. § 18-5413(2). The district court imposed
concurrent sentences of seven years with three years determinate on the possession of a
controlled substance conviction and a determinate term of six months for providing false
information. Lavatta filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which
the district court denied. Lavatta appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by
denying his motion for reduction of sentence.
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 information submitted with Lavatta’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Lavatta’s Rule
35 motion is affirmed.

2