State v. Carrasco, 566 P.3d 474

Carrasco, originally charged as a juvenile, pleaded guilty as an adult to vehicular manslaughter after a plea agreement; an aggravated DUI charge was dismissed.
The district court imposed an eight-year sentence with four years fixed, but initially retained jurisdiction and placed Carrasco on probation after a period of retained jurisdiction.
Carrasco violated probation after new charges of lewd conduct and rape were brought against him in a separate county, leading to admission of a probation violation in the original case.
A non-binding plea agreement recommended Carrasco’s sentence in the probation case mirror any sentence in his new case, but the court rejected this, revoked probation, and executed the original sentence without retaining jurisdiction.
The court denied Carrasco’s Rule 35 motion for sentence reduction, and Carrasco appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion and the prosecutor breached the plea agreement.

Issue	Carrasco's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion by not retaining jurisdiction after probation violation	Court should have retained jurisdiction to allow Carrasco to participate in the retained jurisdiction program, as in his new case	Retained jurisdiction not necessary; Carrasco not a suitable candidate based on past performance	No abuse of discretion; district court’s decision affirmed
Whether denial of Rule 35 motion was erroneous	Sentence was excessive; new information justified leniency	No new or additional information provided to justify sentence reduction	No abuse of discretion; motion properly denied
Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement	Prosecutor breached agreement by opposing Rule 35 motion and qualifying sentencing recommendations	Claim not preserved below; plea was non-binding and did not extend to Rule 35 phase	Not preserved for appeal; no breach; claim fails

State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26 (Ct. App. 2009) (review of sentences executed after probation examines entire record, before and after original judgment)
State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318 (characterizes Rule 35 motions for leniency as discretionary)
State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324 (revocation of probation is within trial court's discretion)
State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618 (focus of probation revocation review is conduct underlying revocation)
State v. Flowers, 150 Idaho 568 (non-binding plea agreements don't constrain parties at Rule 35 stage unless stated)