State of Idaho v. James Gerald Sweat, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51752

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 16, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JAMES GERALD SWEAT, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia
County. Hon. Barry R. Wood, Senior District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of thirty years with a minimum period
of confinement of fifteen years for one count of lewd conduct with a minor under
sixteen, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
James Gerald Sweat, Jr. pled guilty to one count of lewd conduct with a minor under
sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court imposed a unified term of thirty years with fifteen years determinate and retained
jurisdiction. Sweat filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Sweat
appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence,
specifically by retaining jurisdiction instead of placing him on probation, and by denying his Rule
35 motion.

1
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). That discretion includes the trial court’s decision
regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation and whether to retain jurisdiction.
I.C. § 19-2601(3), (4); State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002); State
v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case
shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that
probation was not appropriate. 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.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Sweat’s Rule 35 motion. A
motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 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 Sweat’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Sweat’s judgment of conviction and sentence and the district court’s order
denying Sweat’s Rule 35 motion are affirmed.

2