State of Idaho v. KYLIE OPAL ROBINSON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53065

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 11, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KYLIE OPAL ROBINSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Shoshone County. Hon. Barbara Duggan, District Judge.

Order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed.

Katherine Ball and Xavier Suarez, University of Idaho Legal Aid Clinic; and Erik
R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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
Kylie Opal Robinson pled guilty to unlawful possession of a firearm, Idaho Code
§ 18-3316(1). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court sentenced Robinson to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement
of two years. Robinson filed a Rule 35 motion asking the district court to reduce her sentence to
a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, which the district
court denied. Robinson appeals.
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

1
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
Robinson’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the
district court’s order denying Robinson’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.

2