COEUR d'ALENE -

A Kootenai County District Court decision to dismiss the second sentence-reduction appeal of Larry Morris was upheld by the Idaho Court of Appeals on Tuesday.

Morris pleaded guilty in 2010 to possession of methamphetamine and being a persistent violator. In his plea-bargain agreement, Morris said he would cooperate with law enforcement as a confidential informant and in return the prosecution agreed to recommend probation.

However, things changed for Morris when his newborn daughter tested positive for methamphetamine and a Child Protective Act case was filed against him. In the case, the court told Morris that he would lose custody of his daughter if he "associated with anyone using drugs."

As a result, Morris refused to be a confidential informant and the prosecution did not recommend probation at his sentencing.

"I know I didn't follow what the state asked me to do as far as the plea bargain itself," Morris said at his sentencing. "I'm in a Catch-22. If I do what they want me to do, it interferes with my family. I'll do what I have to do to keep my daughter."

Morris was sentenced to 15 years in prison, with the eligibility for parole after 10 years. Shortly after, he filed a petition with the courts to have his sentence reduced, claiming his legal counsel failed to convince the court to accept the Child Protective Act case records into evidence.

The court granted Morris' appeal, in part, reducing his sentence to 14 years in prison with the eligibility for parole after 10 years. Morris appealed this ruling and the case went to the Idaho Court of Appeals.

In the written opinion on the case, appeals court Judge David Gratton said that Morris "failed to establish prejudice" in the initial ruling due to there being no "reasonable probability that the admission of the Child Protective Act documents would have changed Morris' sentence."

Gratton determined that the district court ruled correctly when it reduced Morris' sentence by a year and that the admission of the Child Protective Act documents would not have changed the decision.

"Morris has already received the only remedy that could appropriately be granted on this claim in the post-conviction action, which is re-sentencing," Gratton wrote.