State v. Darius Duane Brown

Darius Duane Brown pled guilty to burglary (Docket 44364) and received a unified 7-year sentence with 3 years determinate, suspended, and 4 years supervised probation. He admitted multiple probation violations and the probation period was later extended.
Brown was charged in two separate eluding incidents (Dockets 44365 and 44366), each charged as eluding a peace officer with a persistent violator enhancement; he pled guilty to both.
After plea and admissions, the district court revoked probation, executed the burglary sentence, imposed concurrent 20-year unified sentences (5 years determinate) on the eluding counts, retained jurisdiction, then later suspended those sentences and placed Brown on 3 years supervised probation.
Brown violated probation a fifth time; the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentences in all three cases. Brown appealed the revocations and filed I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentence.
The district court granted partial relief on the Rule 35 motions by reducing the determinate terms on the eluding counts to 4 years but denied reduction for the burglary sentence. Brown appealed the probation revocations and the partial denial of his Rule 35 motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking Brown’s probation	Brown argued revocation was excessive given rehabilitation efforts and prior continuances	State argued Brown repeatedly violated probation and committed new offenses warranting revocation	Court held no abuse of discretion; revocation affirmed
Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying, in part, Brown’s I.C.R. 35 motion	Brown argued his sentences were excessive and warranted greater reduction based on new information/leniency plea	State argued no new information justified further reduction and sentence was within discretion	Court held no abuse of discretion; partial denial affirmed
Whether retained jurisdiction or alternative sanctions were required before executing sentences	Brown suggested alternatives could better serve rehabilitation	State relied on court’s discretion to execute sentences after violations	Court affirmed trial court’s discretionary choices, including execution of sentences
Whether the record supported revocation based on conduct underlying decisions	Brown disputed sufficiency of record and justification for revocation	State pointed to multiple probation violations and new eluding convictions in the record	Court found the record supported revocation; focus on underlying conduct upheld

State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (Ct. App. 1992) (standard for probation revocation and court discretion)
State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 772 P.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1989) (probation revocation discretion)
State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1988) (revocation standard; rehabilitation and public protection factors)
State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 899 P.2d 984 (Ct. App. 1995) (consideration of rehabilitation and society protection in revocation)
State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (Ct. App. 2012) (focus on underlying conduct when reviewing revocation)
State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1989) (court may execute sentence or reduce under I.C.R. 35 after violation)
State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 144 P.3d 23 (2006) (I.C.R. 35 is plea for leniency addressed to court discretion)
State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 771 P.2d 66 (Ct. App. 1989) (Rule 35 discretionary leniency)
State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007) (defendant must show sentence excessive in light of new information for Rule 35 relief)