50182 State v. Doyle

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50181 & 50182

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 18, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ERIC VON DOYLE, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield,
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 HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Eric Von Doyle, Jr. appeals from the denial of his Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions in these
consolidated cases. In Docket No. 50181, Doyle pleaded guilty to stalking in the first degree,
Idaho Code § 18-7905, and the district court imposed a five-year determinate sentence. In Docket
No. 50182, Doyle pleaded guilty to grand theft, I.C. §§ 18-2407(1)(b)(3), -2403(1), and the district
court imposed a unified ten-year sentence, with three years determinate. The sentences were
ordered to run consecutively. The district court retained jurisdiction in both cases, and Doyle was
sent to participate in the rider program. The district court subsequently relinquished jurisdiction.
Doyle filed an I.C.R. 35 motion in each case. Following a hearing, the district court denied the

1
motions. Doyle appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule
35 motions.
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 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including
any new information submitted with Doyle’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion
has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s orders denying Doyle’s I.C.R. 35 motions are
affirmed.

2