STATE OF IDAHO v. DANIEL McDONNELL

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50173

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 12, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DANIEL McDONNELL, ) 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. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

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

Eric D. Fredericksen, 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
Daniel McDonnell pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-
2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced McDonnell to a unified sentence of four years with two
years determinate. McDonnell filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for a reduction of
sentence, which the district court denied. McDonnell appeals asserting that the district court
abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion.
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 a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of

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

2