State of Idaho v. JIMMY JOHN PUGH

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52722

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 11, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JIMMY JOHN PUGH, ) 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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Jimmy John Pugh pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c).
In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. Pursuant to a stipulation of
the parties, the district court sentenced Pugh to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, to be served concurrently with another unrelated sentence.
Pugh filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Pugh appeals, arguing that the
district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion.
In denying the Rule 35 motion, the district court noted that Pugh stipulated to the sentence
he received, considered the additional information he submitted, concluded the information was

1
“encouraging,” but denied the 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 Pugh’s Rule 35 motion, we
conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying
Pugh’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

2