State v. David Eugene Bowen

Bowen pled guilty to sexual battery of a 16-year-old (I.C. § 18-1508) (Count I) and sexual abuse of children under 16 (I.C. § 18-1508A) (Count II); other charges were dismissed as part of the plea.
The court suspended a unified life sentence with a three-year minimum on Count I and placed Bowen on probation.
On Count II the court imposed a concurrent unified seven-year sentence with a three-year minimum and retained jurisdiction; Bowen completed retained jurisdiction and served the seven-year term.
Bowen was placed on probation after serving Count II, later admitted violating probation, and the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the previously suspended Count I sentence.
Bowen filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion to reduce the sentence, which the district court denied; Bowen appealed both the revocation and the Rule 35 denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking Bowen's probation	Bowen argued revocation was an abuse because the court should not have executed the suspended sentence given circumstances (implicitly seeking continued probation or leniency)	The State argued the violation justified revocation under statutory and case-law standards and protected society and rehabilitation goals supported revocation	Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in revoking probation based on the record and applicable standards
Whether denial of Bowen's I.C.R. 35 motion was an abuse of discretion	Bowen argued his sentence was excessive and sought reduction under I.C.R. 35	The State argued Rule 35 relief is discretionary and Bowen did not present new information warranting mercy or reduction	Court affirmed denial: Bowen failed to show abuse of discretion or sufficient new/additional information

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