State of Idaho v. Alexei Petru Botica

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50171

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 17, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ALEXEI PETRU BOTICA, ) 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. Scott Wayman, Senior District Judge.

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

Eric D. Fredericksen, 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 LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Alexei Petru Botica pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(4), 18-2407. In
exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he
was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Botica to a unified term of seven years
with three years determinate. Botica filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district
court denied. Botica appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by 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. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In

1
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 Botica’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Botica’s Rule
35 motion is affirmed.

2