State of Idaho v. Duane Alan Yarnell

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50066

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 18, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DUANE ALAN YARNELL, ) 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 Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
Duane Alan Yarnell pleaded guilty to two counts of aiding and abetting grand theft of a
financial instrument, Idaho Code § 18-204. The district court imposed two unified sentences of
five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, to run concurrently. Yarnell filed
an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion requesting the district court retain jurisdiction, place him on
probation, or reduce his determinate sentence, but increase his indeterminate time, which the
district court denied. Yarnell 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

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

2