State v. Jose Esteban Brunet, 155 Idaho 724

Brunet pleaded guilty to grand theft; forgery was dismissed under a plea agreement; district court sentenced five years with two fixed, suspended on probation.
Brunet violated probation with petit theft and supervision failures; district court revoked probation and retained jurisdiction.
A rider program and NICI occurred; NICI recommended relinquishment of jurisdiction; the district court relinquished jurisdiction and denied Rule 35 leniency.
Brunet appealed; the appellate record included prior plea and sentencing minutes, PSI materials, and NICI reports; he sought two transcripts at public expense.
This Court denied Brunet’s request to augment the record; Brunet argued due process and equal protection; the district court’s relinquishment and Rule 35 denial are under review.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding no due process violation in not creating transcripts and no abuse of discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction or denying Rule 35 leniency.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a due process/equal protection violation in augmenting the record?	Brunet alleged failure to provide transcripts harmed appeal.	Record was sufficient for adequate review; no colorable need shown.	No violation; record sufficient.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction?	Relinquishment was inappropriate given Brunet’s history.	Court properly considered factors; sufficient information supported relinquishment.	No abuse of discretion; relinquishment affirmed.
Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Brunet's Rule 35 motion for leniency?	New information warrants leniency; five-year term too harsh.	No new information; court correctly denied leniency.	No abuse; Rule 35 denial affirmed.

State v. Strand, 137 Idaho 457 (2002) (colorable need for transcripts required for indigent defendant)
Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971) (colorable need and indigent appellant rights to records)
Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1970) (colorable need concept; appearance vs. reality in color of law title)
State v. Latneau, 154 Idaho 165 (2013) (abuse of discretion standards for relinquishment decisions)
State v. Statton, 136 Idaho 135 (2001) (sufficient information can support relinquishment)
State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201 (2007) (Rule 35—leniency standard and timing)
State v. Pierce, 150 Idaho 1 (2010) (independent review of sentencing record)