State of Idaho v. Brian Carl Baca

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53200

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 14, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BRIAN CARL BACA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John A. Cafferty, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Brian Carl Baca pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Idaho Code
§§ 37-2732(c)(1)). Baca also admitted to being a persistent violator of the law (I.C.
§ 19-2514). The district court sentenced Baca to a unified term of twenty years with four years
determinate. Baca filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the
district court denied. Baca appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by denying
his 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

1
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 Baca’s I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion
has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Baca’s I.C.R. 35(b) motion is
affirmed.

2