State of Idaho v. Ronny Lee Walls

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52860

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 28, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RONNY LEE WALLS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Davis F. VanderVelde, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of five years, for driving under the influence, affirmed; order
denying I.C.R. 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Ronny Lee Walls pled guilty to driving under the influence, Idaho Code § 18-8005(9). In
exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Walls
to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years. Walls filed an
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Walls appeals, arguing that his
sentence is excessive; more specifically, that the district court abused its discretion by not imposing
a more lenient sentence, including a period of retained jurisdiction. Walls further argues that the
district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.

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 and
need not be repeated here. 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.
The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain
additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and
is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App.
2005). Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. Id. There can be no abuse of
discretion in declining to retain jurisdiction if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to
conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. Id. The goal of probation is
to foster the probationer’s rehabilitation while protecting public safety. State v. Cheatham, 159
Idaho 856, 858, 367 P.3d 251, 253 (Ct. App. 2016). A decision to deny probation will not be
deemed an abuse of discretion if it is consistent with the criteria articulated in I.C. § 19-2521. The
record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and
determined that retaining jurisdiction was not appropriate.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Walls’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 or additional
information submitted with Walls’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been
shown.

2
Therefore, Walls’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Walls’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

3