51963/51964 State v. Covey

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51962/51963/51964

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 21, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RYAN GLENN COVEY, ) 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. Barry McHugh, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two years, for abuse of a vulnerable adult in Docket No. 51962,
affirmed; judgments of conviction and unified sentences of five years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of two years, for felony intimidating a witness in
Docket No. 51963 and Docket No. 51964, affirmed; and orders denying Idaho
Criminal Rule 35 motions, 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 HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
This appeal involves three consolidated cases. In Docket No. 51962, Ryan Glenn Covey
pleaded guilty to abuse of a vulnerable adult, Idaho Code § 18-1505(1). The district court imposed
a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years. In Docket
Nos. 51963 and 51964, Covey entered an Alford1 plea to one count of felony intimidating a

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
witness, I.C. § 18-2604(3), in each case.2 The district court imposed unified sentences of five
years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, for each count of intimidating a
witness. The sentences in all three cases were ordered to run concurrently. In exchange for his
guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. Covey filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion in
all three cases, which the district court denied. Covey appeals.
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). 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/retaining jurisdiction was not appropriate.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Covey’s Rule 35 motions. 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 Covey’s Rule 35 motions, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, after applying these standards, and having reviewed the records in these cases,
we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Covey’s judgments of conviction and
sentences, and the district court’s orders denying Covey’s Rule 35 motions, are affirmed.

2
In Docket No. 51963, Covey also pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic battery in the
presence of a child, resisting arrest, and two counts of violation of the no-contact order. In Docket
No. 51964, Covey pleaded guilty to criminal contempt, one count of violation of the no-contact
order, and resisting arrest. Those convictions are not at issue in this appeal.

2