State v. Lysa Rose Miley

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39615

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 335
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 22, 2013
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
LYSA ROSE MILEY, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent unified sentences of ten years, with a
minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years, for each count of
burglary and grand theft, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction
of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Lysa Rose Miley pled guilty to one count of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401 and one
count of grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced
Miley to concurrent unified terms of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two
and one-half years on each count. Miley filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Miley appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by
imposing excessive sentences and by denying her Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion.
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.

1
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). 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 Miley’s 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 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). In conducting our review of the grant
or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for
determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740
P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of
the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Miley’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Miley’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2