State of Idaho v. Patrick Cody Ernest Holland

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49925

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 12, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
PATRICK CODY ERNEST HOLLAND, ) 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. Darla S. Williamson; Hon. Nancy A. Baskin, District Judges.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of twenty years with ten
years determinate for trafficking in heroin and seven years determinate for
possession of methamphetamine, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35
motion for 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 BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Patrick Cody Ernest Holland was found guilty of trafficking in heroin, Idaho Code § 37-
2732B(a)(6)(B); possession of methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c); misdemeanor possession of
paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A; and misdemeanor possession of marijuana, I.C. § 37-2732(c). A
persistent violator enhancement was dismissed. The district court imposed concurrent, unified
sentences of twenty years with ten years determinate for trafficking in heroin, seven years

1
determinate for possession of methamphetamine,1 and credit for time served for each of the
misdemeanors. Holland filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Holland appeals.
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 Holland’s 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 Holland’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Holland’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Holland’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

1
Holland’s opening brief and the State’s response brief both state that the district court
sentenced Holland to “seven years, with no fixed portion” for felony possession of
methamphetamine. The judgment of conviction, however, states that “the defendant shall serve a
minimum fixed period of custody of seven (7) years followed by an indeterminate period of
custody of up to zero (0) years.” Likewise, the court during the sentencing hearing stated that this
sentence was for “seven years fixed.”
2