Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 53455 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: October 23, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ROBBY DAVID HALEY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. ) ) Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Washington County. Hon. Kiley Stuchlik, District Judge. Order revoking probation, affirmed; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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; LORELLO, Judge; and FLEMING, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Robby David Haley pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1)). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Haley to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years; however, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Haley on probation. In March 2025, Haley admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court continued Haley on probation. In October 2025, Haley again admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. At the disposition hearing, Haley also requested a reduction in his sentence pursuant to 1 Idaho Criminal Rule 35. After disposition, Haley filed a written Rule 35 motion requesting the same reduction in his sentence, which the district court denied. Haley appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and in denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19-2603, 20-222; State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 1054, 772 P.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 (Ct. App. 1988). In determining whether to revoke probation a court must examine whether the probation is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society. State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 275, 899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1995); Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; Hass, 114 Idaho at 558, 758 P.2d at 717. The court may, after a probation violation has been established, order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the court is authorized under I.C.R. 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). The court may also order a period of retained jurisdiction. State v. Urrabazo, 150 Idaho 158, 162, 244 P.3d 1244, 1248 (2010). A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327. In reviewing the propriety of a probation revocation, the focus of the inquiry is the conduct underlying the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in either revoking probation or in ordering execution of Haley’s sentence. 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 motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new or additional information submitted with Haley’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. 2 Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Haley’s previously suspended sentence and the order denying Haley’s Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence are affirmed. 3