State v. Juan Lagunas Baltazar

Juan Lagunas Baltazar pled guilty to felony DUI in Docket No. 44134 and received a unified 10-year sentence with a 3-year minimum, suspended after retained jurisdiction and placement on probation.
In Docket No. 44135 he pled guilty to felony DUI and felony eluding; additional charges were dismissed in the plea agreement.
Based on the Docket 44135 pleas, the State alleged and the court found Baltazar violated the probation in Docket 44134; the court revoked probation and ordered execution of the suspended sentence.
The court then sentenced Baltazar to an indeterminate 10 years for DUI and 5 years for eluding, ordered to run consecutively to the prior sentence.
Baltazar filed I.C.R. 35 motions to reduce sentences; the district court denied them.
Baltazar appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in revoking probation, that his sentences were excessive, and that the Rule 35 denials were error.

Issue	Baltazar's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation	Revocation was an abuse of discretion given rehabilitation aims or insufficiency of violation	Court properly revoked probation where terms were violated and protection of society considered	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in revocation
Whether Baltazar's sentences are excessive	Sentences (including consecutive terms) are excessive/unreasonable	Sentences within trial court discretion, justified by record including post-sentencing conduct	Affirmed — sentences not excessive
Whether the district court erred in denying I.C.R. 35 motions	Court should have reduced sentence under Rule 35 based on leniency/new information	Denial was proper; Rule 35 is discretionary and requires new/additional mitigating information	Affirmed — denial of Rule 35 motions was within discretion

State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (Ct. App.) (standards for probation revocation and execution of suspended sentence)
State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 772 P.2d 260 (Ct. App.) (probation revocation principles)
State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct. App.) (review of probation revocation)
State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 899 P.2d 984 (Ct. App.) (rehabilitation and public protection considerations in revocation)
State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (Ct. App.) (record elements relevant to revocation review)
State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct. App.) (review of sentences executed after probation revocation)
State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 170 P.3d 387 (Ct. App.) (consider entire sentence on review)
State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Ct. App.) (court may reduce sentence under I.C.R. 35)
State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 144 P.3d 23 (Rule 35 is plea for leniency within court's discretion)
State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 159 P.3d 838 (Rule 35 requires new or additional information showing excessiveness)
State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 740 P.2d 63 (Ct. App.) (criteria for reviewing Rule 35 motions)
State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 822 P.2d 1011 (Ct. App.) (sentencing review standards)
State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 680 P.2d 869 (Ct. App.) (sentencing review factors)
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App.) (sentencing review principles)