State of Idaho v. Vaughan Maurice Wooden

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50268

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 21, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
VAUGHAN MAURICE WOODEN, ) 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. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of one year, for trafficking in marijuana, affirmed; order denying
I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce, 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
Vaughan Maurice Wooden pled guilty to trafficking in marijuana. I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A).
In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge that he is a persistent violator was dismissed.
The district court sentenced Wooden to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of
confinement of one year. Wooden filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied.
Wooden appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court erred in denying
his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.

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

2