State v. Kody Ray Gibbs, 405 P.3d 567

Gibbs pled guilty (2013) to delivery of a controlled substance; received a suspended 15‑year sentence (10 years fixed) and five years probation conditioned on completing mental health court.
Multiple probation violations and a 2014 conviction (injury to a child) resulted in a retained‑jurisdiction sentence; Gibbs completed the rider.
In 2016 Gibbs faced new state probation‑violation allegations (including sexual exploitation of a child) and a federal indictment for possession of child pornography; the State moved to dismiss state charges contingent on Gibbs pleading guilty federally.
The district judge objected to the parties’ plea deal, threatened to appoint a special prosecutor, and ultimately—sua sponte—entered an order extending Gibbs’ probation to life (same terms and conditions), reserving the right to pursue violations after Gibbs’ federal imprisonment.
Gibbs appealed, arguing judicial impartiality (due process) and that the court abused its discretion by extending probation from six years to life.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Gibbs was denied due process by a non‑impartial judge	Judge was upset at plea deal, acted like prosecutor and punished Gibbs by extending probation; bias denied fair hearing	Judge acted within judicial duties, monitoring and modifying probation based on information encountered in proceedings	No reversible impartiality violation; Gibbs failed to meet high recusal/bias standard
Whether the court abused its discretion by extending probation sua sponte from six years to life	Extension was punitive, based on dismissed/unproven allegations and judge’s displeasure with the plea deal; decision lacked reasoned exercise of discretion	Court had statutory authority to modify/extend probation up to statutory maximum (life), acted for public protection after notice and opportunity to be heard	No abuse of discretion; extension within statutory bounds and supported by facts known to court

State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (2010) (articulates three‑part fundamental error test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Lankford, 116 Idaho 860, 781 P.2d 197 (1989) (judge’s judicial acts generally distinguishable from prosecutorial acts; recusal standard)
Pizzuto v. State, 134 Idaho 793, 10 P.3d 742 (2000) (presumption judges can disregard prejudicial information learned in proceedings)
Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 229 P.3d 1146 (2010) (high standard for recusal based on information acquired in judicial duties)
Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994) (judicial rulings/remarks rarely constitute bias warranting recusal)
State v. Breeden, 129 Idaho 813, 932 P.2d 936 (1997) (court may extend probation so long as total does not exceed statutory maximum)
State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1331 (1989) (abuse‑of‑discretion review framework)
State v. Windom, 150 Idaho 873, 253 P.3d 310 (2011) (appellate court defers to trial court’s discretionary sentencing choices)
State v. Muchow, 142 Idaho 401, 128 P.3d 938 (2006) (statutory construction: probation extensions measured against maximum possible imprisonment)
State v. Doe, 140 Idaho 271, 92 P.3d 521 (2004) (avoid unnecessary constitutional rulings)