1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44758

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DONALD JOSEPH MAILLOUX, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 571

Filed: September 1, 2017

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Michael Reardon, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and orders revoking probation, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Donald Joseph Mailloux, Jr. pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled 

substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence, 

with one and one-half years determinate. Mailloux filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, 

which the district court denied. Mailloux appeals contending the district court abused its 

discretion by refusing to place him on probation or to reduce the fixed portion of his sentence.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. That discretion includes the trial 

court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation. I.C. § 19-

2601(3); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002). Both our 

standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the 
2

sentence are well established. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 

1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 

1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing 

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Mailloux’s 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 v. 

Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). In conducting our review of the grant 

or denial of an I.C.R. 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used 

for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 

740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review 

of the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Mailloux’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order 

denying Mailloux’s I.C.R. 35 motion, are affirmed.