               IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 41035

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )     2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 333
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )     Filed: January 23, 2014
                                                )
v.                                              )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
DARRELL E. PENN,                                )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge.

       Order denying Idaho         Criminal   Rule    35   motion    for   reduction   of
       sentence, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
       Darrell E. Penn pled guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.
Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(5). The district court sentenced Penn to a unified term of ten
years, with five years determinate. Penn filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the
district court denied. Penn appeals.
       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


                                               1
motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the
denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent
the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of
Penn’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the
foregoing reasons, the district court’s order denying Penn’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.




                                                2
