State of Idaho v. Michael Patrick Martin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52563

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 6, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL PATRICK MARTIN, ) 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. Derrick J. O’Neill, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of twelve years, for aggravated battery, affirmed; order
denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed; case
remanded for correction to and distribution of presentence investigation report.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Neil Paterson, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Michael Patrick Martin pled guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code §§ 18-903(a), 18-
907(1)(b). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. At the sentencing
hearing, the State informed the district court of errors in the presentence investigation
report (PSI). Specifically, there were fourteen pages in the PSI that did not apply to Martin.1
Martin had no objection to the district court redacting those pages and the district court agreed to

1
At sentencing, pages 198 through 212 of the PSI were identified as the pages that did not
belong in Martin’s PSI.
1
make the corrections. The district court sentenced Martin to a unified term of fifteen years with
twelve years determinate. Martin then filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of
sentence, which the district court denied. Martin appeals, contending that the district court abused
its discretion by failing to remove the pages that do not apply to Martin from the PSI, by imposing
an excessive sentence, and by denying his I.C.R. 35 motion.
The pages that do not apply to Martin are still in the PSI in the appellate record and there
is no notation or addendum reflecting the changes in the record. Martin requests that this Court
remand this case to the district court to ensure the removal of the information that does not apply
to him in the PSI and that a corrected copy of the PSI is distributed to the Idaho Department of
Correction (IDOC). The State agrees to a limited remand to the district court. Consequently, we
remand this case to the district court for the limited purpose of ensuring that the pages in the PSI
that do not apply to Martin are removed, a copy of the corrected PSI is made part of the district
court’s record, and the corrected PSI report is transmitted to IDOC in accordance with Idaho
Criminal Rule 32. See State v. Greer, 171 Idaho 555, 563, 524 P.3d 386, 394 (2023).
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 Martin’s I.C.R. 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 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

2
201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information
submitted with Martin’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Martin’s judgment of conviction and sentence and the district court’s order denying
Martin’s I.C.R. 35 motion are affirmed. This case is remanded for the limited purpose of ensuring
the removal of the pages noted above and the corrected PSI is distributed to IDOC is appropriate.

3