State v. Ramon S. Garcia
Background
- Ramon S. Garcia pleaded guilty in 2010 to felony DUI and received a unified 7-year sentence (3 years determinate) with retained jurisdiction; placed on probation after retained jurisdiction.
- In 2013 Garcia pleaded guilty to stalking, received a consecutive unified 5-year sentence (1 year determinate) with retained jurisdiction; later placed on probation after retained jurisdiction.
- In 2015 Garcia pleaded guilty to another felony DUI, admitted probation violations in the 2010 and 2013 cases; district court revoked probation, executed the 2010 and 2013 sentences but modified them to run concurrently, and imposed a concurrent 7-year (3 years determinate) sentence in the 2015 case.
- Garcia sought retained jurisdiction or probation in all three cases and filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion to reduce the 2015 sentence.
- The district court denied retention/probation and denied the Rule 35 motion; Garcia appealed claiming abuse of discretion on both grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Garcia's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to retain jurisdiction or place Garcia on probation in the cases | Court should have retained jurisdiction or placed Garcia on probation | Court had sufficient information to conclude Garcia was not suitable for probation; no abuse in declining retained jurisdiction | No abuse of discretion; court permissibly declined to retain jurisdiction or place him on probation |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Garcia's I.C.R. 35 motion to reduce the 2015 sentence | Sentence was excessive and new/additional information justified reduction | No new information shown that makes the sentence excessive; denial was within court's discretion | No abuse of discretion; Rule 35 denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Chapel, 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984) (retained jurisdiction purpose and probation as objective)
- State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App. 1982) (no abuse where court already has sufficient information to deny retained jurisdiction)
- State v. Beebe, 113 Idaho 977, 751 P.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1988) (same principle regarding retained jurisdiction)
- State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 144 P.3d 23 (2006) (Rule 35 is plea for leniency addressed to court's discretion)
- State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 771 P.2d 66 (Ct. App. 1989) (Rule 35 discretion principles)
- State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 159 P.3d 838 (2007) (Rule 35 requires new/additional information showing sentence excessive)