State v. Douglas B. Malar
Background
- Douglas B. Malar pleaded guilty to felony DUI and received a unified five-year sentence with two years determinate, suspended, and was placed on probation.
- Malar admitted multiple probation violations; the district court intermittently revoked probation, executed the sentence, retained jurisdiction, then reinstated probation or ordered sanctions (90 days jail, drug court) as alternatives.
- After a later probation violation the district court ordered execution of the original sentence; Malar filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion to reduce the sentence.
- The district court granted I.C.R. 35 relief and reduced Malar’s sentence to a unified four-year term with two years determinate; post-conviction relief led to amended judgments for the third and fourth violations and the amended I.C.R. 35 order.
- Malar appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and in failing to further reduce his sentence under I.C.R. 35.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Malar) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether district court abused discretion in revoking probation | Revocation was improper given rehabilitative steps and prior leniency | Court may revoke when probation terms violated and to protect society | No abuse of discretion; revocation affirmed |
| Whether district court abused discretion in ordering execution of suspended sentence | Execution was excessive; court should further reduce sentence under I.C.R. 35 | Court acted within discretion to execute or modify sentence after violations | No abuse; execution upheld as within discretion |
| Whether district court abused discretion in denying further reduction on I.C.R. 35 motion | Sentence should have been reduced below the amended four-year term | Court properly considered factors and later modified sentence appropriately | No abuse; I.C.R. 35 relief affirmed as entered |
| Proper standard of review for probation revocation and I.C.R. 35 decisions | N/A — challenges framed under abuse-of-discretion review | District court decisions reviewed only for abuse of discretion | Abuse-of-discretion standard applies; no abuse found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324 (Ct. App.) (probation revocation standard and court discretion to execute suspended sentence or reduce under I.C.R. 35)
- State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053 (Ct. App.) (probation revocation principles)
- State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554 (Ct. App.) (probation revocation principles)
- State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274 (Ct. App.) (rehabilitation and public safety as revocation considerations)
- State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976 (Ct. App.) (court authority to execute suspended sentence or reduce under I.C.R. 35)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618 (Ct. App.) (focus on conduct underlying revocation decision)
- State v. Villarreal, 126 Idaho 277 (Ct. App.) (I.C.R. 35 review is for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114 (Ct. App.) (standards for reviewing sentence reasonableness)
- State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565 (Ct. App.) (sentencing review principles)
- State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722 (Ct. App.) (review considers defendant’s entire sentence)
- State v. McGonigal, 122 Idaho 939 (Ct. App.) (review of modified sentence after I.C.R. 35 is abuse-of-discretion)
- State v. Cotton, 100 Idaho 573 (Ct. App.) (defendant bears burden to show clear abuse of discretion in sentencing)