341 P.3d 1269
Idaho Ct. App.2014Background
- Carter pled guilty to felony eluding and DUI under a plea agreement: state would recommend a unified sentence of no more than five years with a two-year minimum on eluding; court imposed five years unified with a one-year fixed minimum for eluding and a concurrent one-year for DUI.
- Carter filed a pro se I.C.R. 35 motion seeking reduction of his eluding sentence and a contemporaneous pro se request for appointment of counsel.
- The district court denied appointment of counsel, concluding the Rule 35 motion was frivolous, and then denied the Rule 35 motion on the merits.
- Carter argued the court mischaracterized the plea agreement (claiming he was free to recommend a lesser sentence) and so erred in denying counsel; alternatively, he argued the court abused discretion by limiting review to the fixed portion of the sentence.
- The court found Carter’s submission (attendance at AA/NA and recovery meetings while awaiting transfer) did not present new information undermining the original sentencing rationale—rehabilitation via intensive incarcerated treatment—and therefore the Rule 35 motion was frivolous and meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in denying appointment of counsel for the Rule 35 proceeding | Carter: denial improper because court misstated plea terms and motion was not frivolous | State: court may deny appointed counsel if motion is frivolous and not something a reasonable person would pay to pursue | Held: Affirmed — motion was frivolous as it lacked new information warranting sentence reduction, so denial of appointed counsel proper |
| Whether district court abused discretion denying Rule 35 motion for sentence reduction | Carter: court limited review to fixed portion and misapplied law, so abused discretion | State: court properly reviewed the sentence, focused on fixed portion as probable term of confinement, and the record supports denial; no new evidence of excessiveness | Held: Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion; Carter provided no new evidence justifying reduction and sentencing objectives supported the original sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Wade, 125 Idaho 522 (Ct. App.) (right to counsel in Rule 35 proceedings; frivolous-motion standard)
- State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201 (Idaho Sup. Ct.) (Rule 35 review requires new evidence to show excessiveness; clarified standard for reviewing determinate/indeterminate portions)
- State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318 (Idaho Sup. Ct.) (Rule 35 is plea for leniency reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845 (Ct. App.) (Rule 35 is discretionary plea for leniency)
- State v. Farwell, 144 Idaho 732 (Idaho Sup. Ct.) (must present new evidence to show original sentence was excessive when only Rule 35 denial is appealed)
- State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722 (Idaho Sup. Ct.) (court reviews entire sentence for abuse of discretion; fixed portion presumed probable term of confinement)
- State v. Hayes, 123 Idaho 26 (Ct. App.) (discusses presumption treating fixed portion as measure for review)
- State v. Sanchez, 115 Idaho 776 (Ct. App.) (treating minimum period as probable measure of confinement for review)
- State v. Herrera, 130 Idaho 839 (Ct. App.) (discussed special-circumstances test for reviewing indeterminate portion)
- State v. Arthur, 145 Idaho 219 (Idaho Sup. Ct.) (clarified review standard; no special-circumstances requirement)
- State v. Pierce, 107 Idaho 96 (Ct. App.) (correct legal rulings may be sustained despite erroneous factual basis)
- State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21 (Ct. App.) (review of Rule 35 considers entire record and same criteria as original sentence review)
- State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447 (Ct. App.) (same standard for sentence review under Rule 35)