State of Idaho v. Joseph Patrick Brollier

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 49989

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 12, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOSEPH PATRICK BROLLIER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Michael J. Reardon, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Andrew V. Wake, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Joseph Patrick Brollier pleaded guilty to felony operating a motor vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(6). The district court imposed a unified
sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration for three years, suspended the
sentence, and placed Brollier on a term of probation. Brollier subsequently admitted to violating
the terms of his probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and executed
Brollier’s previously suspended sentence. Brollier filed an untimely Idaho Criminal Rule 35
motion, which the district court denied. On appeal, “[m]indful that his motion was not timely
filed, he asserts that the district court abused its discretion when it denied his Rule 35 motion.”

1
A district court may reduce a sentence on a motion made within fourteen days of an order
revoking probation. I.C.R. 35(b). The filing limitations are jurisdictional and, unless filed within
the period prescribed, a district court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief. State v. Thomas, 161 Idaho
898, 899, 392 P.3d 1239, 1240 (Ct. App. 2017). Because Brollier’s motion was filed more than
fourteen days after entry of the order revoking his probation, the district court lacked jurisdiction
to consider it. Accordingly, we do not address the merits of Brollier’s Rule 35 motion. Therefore,
the district court's order denying Brollier’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

2