State v. Morris

── State v. Morris ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 51675 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 29, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED WARD JOSEPH MORRIS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Benewah County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge. Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences, affirmed. Phelps & Associates; Douglas D. Phelps, Spokane, Washington, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem Ward Joseph Morris appeals from an order denying his I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentences. We affirm. I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The State charged Morris with two counts of sexual exploitation of a child through possession of sexually exploitive material, one count of sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years of age through solicitation to participate in a sexual act, and one count of infamous crime against nature. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Morris entered Alford1 pleas to two counts of sexual exploitation of a child (I.C. § 18-1507(2)(a)), and the State agreed to dismiss the remaining 1 See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970). 1 counts. Under the agreement, the parties were free to recommend any lawful sentences, and Morris agreed to waive his appellate rights as to his judgment of conviction and sentences. At sentencing, Morris submitted various materials in mitigation, including medical records, a psychosexual evaluation, testimony from Dr. Brian Campbell regarding Morris’s cognitive functioning following a September 2021 stroke, and letters of support. The State recommended unified sentences of ten years, each with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Morris requested that the district court grant probation. The district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of ten years, each with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Morris filed a notice of appeal from his judgment of conviction and the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as untimely. Morris thereafter filed his Rule 35 motion seeking a reduction of his sentences. Morris argued the district court erred at sentencing by giving repeated consideration to dismissed counts and by failing to adequately weigh mitigating evidence, including evidence relating to his cognitive condition. Morris did not submit additional information with the Rule 35 motion beyond the materials previously presented at sentencing. The State opposed the motion. The district court denied Morris’s Rule 35 motion, concluding that Morris failed to present new or additional information supporting a reduction of his sentences. Morris appeals. II. ANALYSIS Morris argues the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion because mitigating evidence--including his medical condition, lack of criminal history, low risk of recidivism, and Dr. Campbell’s report--demonstrates the sentences