1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42361

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL DALE ROBERTS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 462

Filed: April 15, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Orders revoking probation and denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Michael Dale Roberts pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code 

§ 37-2732(c). The district court sentenced Roberts to unified term of seven years with two years 

determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district 

court suspended the sentence and placed Roberts on probation for seven years. Subsequently, 

Roberts admitted to violating his probation and at the hearing on his probation violation asked 

the district court to consider reducing his sentence pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35. The 

district court subsequently revoked Roberts’ probation and ordered his underlying sentence 

executed without reduction. Roberts appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion 
2

by declining to retain jurisdiction for a second time and by denying his oral Rule 35 motion for a 

reduction in his 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 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 

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).

The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the trial court to 

obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for 

probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction. 

State v. Chapel, 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 

567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s 

refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to 

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. State v. Beebe, 113 Idaho 

977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based 

upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction in this case.

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 
3

23, 24 (2006); State v. Gill, 150 Idaho 183, 186, 244 P.3d 1269, 1272 (Ct. App. 2010). 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, 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 by revoking probation, failing to retain jurisdiction 

for a second time, or denying Roberts’ Rule 35 motion. Therefore, the order revoking probation 

and directing execution of Roberts’ sentence and the order denying Roberts’ Rule 35 motion are 

affirmed.