State of Idaho v. Kayla Ann May

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52064

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 22, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KAYLA ANN MAY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Jerome
County. Hon. Rosemary Emory, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Kayla Ann May pleaded guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403, -2407. In exchange
for her guilty plea, additional charges were dropped. The district court imposed a withheld
judgment and placed May on probation for a term of three years, with a special condition that May
complete drug court. Subsequently, May was terminated from drug court and admitted to violating
the terms of the probation. The district court revoked the withheld judgment and imposed a unified
sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two and one-half years, but
retained jurisdiction. After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the
sentence and placed May back onto probation. May again admitted to violating the terms of the
probation and the district court continued May on probation and ordered her to complete mental

1
health court. May was terminated from mental health court and once again admitted to violating
the terms of the probation. The district court revoked probation and executed the previously
suspended sentence with credit for time served for 558 days. At the disposition hearing, May made
an oral Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. May appeals, contending
that the district court abused its discretion by denying her I.C.R. 35 motion.
A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency,
addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d
23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting
an I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or
additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State
v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including
any new information submitted with May’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion
has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying May’s I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.

2