State of Idaho v. Charles Hueston Watt, III

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52354

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 22, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHARLES HUESTON WATT, III, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Susie Jensen, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with a minimum period
of confinement of three years for domestic battery with traumatic injury, and
concurrent, unified sentence of five years with three years determinate for first
degree stalking, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Stacey M. Donohue, 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; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Charles Hueston Watt, III pled guilty to domestic battery with traumatic injury, Idaho Code
§ 18-918(2); and first degree stalking, I.C. § 18-7905. The district court imposed a unified term
of ten years with three years determinate for domestic battery with traumatic injury and a
concurrent unified term of five years with three years determinate for stalking. Watt filed an Idaho
Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Watt appeals asserting that the district
court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences and by denying his I.C.R. 35 motion.

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

2