State of Idaho v. Scott G. Huntsinger

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50366

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 3, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SCOTT G. HUNTSINGER, ) 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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with three years
determinate, and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Scott G. Huntsinger was found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or
drugs, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(6), and leaving the scene of an accident involving vehicle
damage, I.C. § 49-1301. Huntsinger admitted to having at least two prior DUI’s within the
previous ten years. The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of three years, for the felony DUI and credit for time served for the
misdemeanor leaving the scene of an accident. Huntsinger filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion,
which the district court denied. Huntsinger appeals and contends the district court abused its

1
discretion by imposing an excessive sentence, specifically by failing to grant probation, and by
denying his Rule 35 motion.
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 and
need not be repeated here. 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). That discretion includes
the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation. I.C. § 19-
2601(3), (4); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002); State v. Lee,
117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that
the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation
jurisdiction was not appropriate.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Huntsinger’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 Huntsinger’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has
been shown.
Therefore, Huntsinger’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Huntsinger’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2