State of Idaho v. Aaron Vincent Fretz

── State of Idaho v. Aaron Vincent Fretz ── Court: Idaho Court of Appeals Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53279 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 29, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED AARON VINCENT FRETZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Joseph W. Borton, District Judge. Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Aaron Vincent Fretz pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm. Idaho Code § 18- 3316. The district court sentenced Fretz to a determinate term of one year, to run consecutively to a federal hold. Fretz filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Fretz appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying his I.C.R. 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 an I.C.R. 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 1 v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Fretz’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Fretz’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed. 2