1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42724/42727/42820

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DEE ALAN RHOADES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 679

Filed: October 29, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bonneville County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge. 

Orders revoking probation, affirmed; judgment of conviction and sentence for 

possession of methamphetamine, second or subsequent offense, affirmed; order 

denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

These cases are consolidated on appeal. In Docket No. 42724, Dee Alan Rhoades pled 

guilty to one count of possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1), and in 

Docket No. 42727 he pled guilty to one count of burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. The district court 

imposed concurrent unified sentences of seven years, with two and one-half years determinate. 

Rhoades filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for reduction of his sentences in both cases which 

the district court granted, retaining jurisdiction for 365 days. After the period of retained 

jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentences and placed Rhoades on probation. 
2

Subsequently, Rhoades admitted to violating the terms of the probation, incurring a charge in 

Docket No. 42820 of possession of methamphetamine, second or subsequent offense, I.C. §§ 37-

2732(c)(1) and 37-2739. The district court consequently revoked probation and ordered 

execution of the original sentences in the underlying cases and imposed a unified sentence of 

thirteen years, with three years determinate, in the third case. Rhoades filed an I.C.R. 35 motion 

for reduction of his sentence, which was denied. Rhoades appeals, contending that the district 

court abused its discretion in revoking probation in Docket Nos. 42724 and 42727, that the 

sentence is excessive in Docket No. 42820, and that the district court abused its discretion in 

denying his I.C.R. 35 motion in Docket No. 42820.

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 Idaho Criminal Rule 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). Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the 

record before the trial court relevant to the revocation of probation issues which are properly 

made part of the record on appeal. Id.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. 

See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State 
3

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 Rhoades’s Rule 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 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). In conducting our review of the grant 

or denial of a Rule 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.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation in Docket Nos. 42724 and 

42727 or in imposing Rhoades’s judgment of conviction and sentence and denying Rhoades’s 

Rule 35 motion in Docket No. 42820. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and directing 

execution of Rhoades’s previously suspended sentences in Docket Nos. 42724 and 42727 are 

affirmed. Rhoades’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order denying 

Rhoades’s Rule 35 motion in Docket No. 42820 are also affirmed.