State of Idaho v. Timmothy Drew Morgan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51994

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 4, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TIMMOTHY DREW MORGAN, ) 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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of seven years, for battery with the intent to commit a
serious felony, affirmed; and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Timmothy Drew Morgan entered an Alford1plea to battery with the intent to commit a
serious felony, Idaho Code §§ 18-903 and 18-911. In exchange for his plea, additional charges
were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of seven years, to run consecutively to all other sentences Morgan is
currently serving. Morgan filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Morgan appeals.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
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 Morgan’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 Morgan’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Morgan’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Morgan’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2