IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43014

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

KEVIN W. CALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 734

Filed: November 30, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and directing execution of previously suspended 

sentence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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

Kevin W. Call pled guilty to aggravated battery with sentencing enhancement. Idaho 

Code §§ 18-903, 18-907(1)(a), (b), 19-2520. The district court sentenced Call to a unified term 

of fifteen years with five years determinate, suspended the sentence and placed Call on probation

for a period of fifteen years. Subsequently, Call admitted to violating the terms of the probation, 

and the district court continued his probation. Later Call again admitted to violating the terms of 

his probation and the district court retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained 

jurisdiction, the district court again placed him on probation. Three years later Call admitted to 

violating his probation and asked the district court to execute a reduced sentence. The district 
court revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Call asserts that the

district court abused its discretion by declining to reduce the determinate portion of his sentence 

upon revocation of his probation.

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). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Call’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. 

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 a sentence are well established and 

need not be repeated here. 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); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710.

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

say that the district court abused its discretion in ordering execution of Call’s original sentence, 

without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Call’s 

previously suspended sentence is affirmed.