State of Idaho v. Ezra MacLovio Smith

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49903

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 25, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
EZRA MACLOVIO SMITH, ) 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 O’Neil, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and aggregate, unified sentence of twenty-five years with
ten years determinate for grand theft, eluding a peace officer, aggravated battery on
certain law enforcement personnel, aggravated assault on certain law enforcement
personnel, use of a deadly weapon during the commission of a crime, and attempted
petit theft, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b) motion for reduction
of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
Ezra Maclovio Smith pled guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-
2407(1)(b)(1), 18-2409; felony eluding a peace officer, I.C. § 49-1404(2)(b); and misdemeanor
attempted petit theft, I.C. §§ 18-204, 18-306, 18-3403(1), 18-2407(2), and 18-2409. Smith
proceeded to trial and was found guilty of aggravated battery on certain law enforcement
personnel, I.C. §§ 18-915(1)(b), 18-907(1)(b), 18-903(a); aggravated assault on certain law

1
enforcement personnel, I.C. §§ 18-915(1)(b), 18-905(a) and/or (b), 18-901(a); and use of a deadly
weapon during the commission of a crime, I.C. § 19-2520. The district court imposed a unified
sentence of fourteen years with seven years determinate for grand theft; a five-year determinate
term for felony eluding; credit for time served for attempted petit theft; twenty-five years with ten
years determinate for aggravated battery; and twenty-five years with ten years determinate for
aggravated assault, resulting in an aggregate sentence of twenty-five years with ten years
determinate. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Smith filed an Idaho Criminal
Rule 35(b) motion, which the district court denied. Smith 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 Smith’s Rule 35(b) 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 Smith’s Rule 35(b) motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Smith’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Smith’s Rule 35(b) motion, are affirmed.

2