State of Idaho v. Billy Joe Thomas

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52930

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 16, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BILLY JOE THOMAS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Custer County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 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
Billy Joe Thomas pled guilty to eluding an officer and operating a vehicle without
consent (Idaho Code §§ 49-1404, 49-227). Thomas also admitted to being a persistent violator of
the law (I.C. § 19-2514). In exchange for his guilty pleas, additional charges were dismissed. The
district court sentenced Thomas to an aggregate term of twenty years with five years determinate,
suspended the sentences, and placed Thomas on probation. Subsequently, the district court
revoked probation and executed the underlying sentences. Thomas filed an Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Thomas appeals, asserting the district court
abused its discretion by denying his I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentences. Specifically,

1
Thomas contends that his sentences are excessive and should be reduced or, alternatively, that he
should be placed on probation.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established. See
State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v.
Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho
565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we
consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391
(2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same
conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App.
2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion.
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
a Rule 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 Thomas’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion
has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Thomas’s Rule 35 motion is
affirmed.

2