1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42692

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

JOHN JOYCE ,
Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 624

Filed: September 10, 2015
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Payette County. Hon. Thomas J. Ryan , District Judge.
Order revoking probation, affirmed ; order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 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 MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________ PER CURIAM John Joyce pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to
deliver , Idaho Code § 37

- 2732(a)(1)(A) . The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years
, but after a period of retained jurisdiction , suspended the sentence and placed Joyce on probation. Subsequently, Joyce admitted to violating the terms of the probation and the district court ordered a second period of retained jurisdiction. Upon completion of the second retained jurisdiction period, Joyce was again placed on probation. After Joyce admitted to violating several terms of his p robation, the
district court revoked Joyce’s probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Joyce2 filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Joyce appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and in denying his Rule 35 motion

. 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. Be ckett , 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 a t 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 probatio n 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 c ourt’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 properl y made part of the record on appeal. Id

. 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 Joyce ’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no
abuse of discretion has been shown.3 Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in denying Joyce’s
Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence . Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing
executi on of Joyce ’s previously suspended sentence and the order denying Joyce’s Rule 35
motion are affirmed.