State of Idaho v. Zachariah Elijah Welke

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50945

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 1, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ZACHARIAH ELIJAH WELKE, ) 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.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Zachariah Elijah Welke pled guilty to trafficking in methamphetamine or amphetamine.
Idaho Code § 37-2732B(a)(4)(A). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was
dismissed. The district court sentenced Welke to a term of eleven years, with a minimum period
of confinement of four years. Welke filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district
court denied. Welke appeals from the denial of the Rule 35 motion.
Mindful that he did not provide any new or additional information in support of his Rule
35 motion, Welke argues the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion. 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.

1
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, which did not include any new or additional information
submitted with Welke’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, the district court’s order denying Welke’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

2