51191 State v. Babb

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51190/51191

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 20, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CORY EUGENE BABB, ) 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. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge.

Orders relinquishing jurisdiction and orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35
motion in Docket No. 51190 and Docket No. 51191, and judgment of conviction
and sentence in Docket No. 51191, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
This appeal involves two cases. In Docket No. 51190, Cory Eugene Babb pled guilty to
attempted grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403, -2407(a)(b)(1)(6), -306, and the district court
imposed a unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of incarceration of three years,
suspended the sentence and placed Babb on a term of probation. Babb admitted to violating the
terms of the probation, which included admitting to a new charge in Docket No. 51191. In Docket
No. 51191, Babb pled guilty to aggravated assault, I.C. §§ 18-901, -905, and the district court
imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years.

1
The sentence was ordered to run consecutive to his sentence in Docket No. 51190. In Docket
No. 51190, the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentence.
The district court retained jurisdiction in both cases. Ultimately, the district court relinquished
jurisdiction. Babb filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion in each case. Following a hearing, the
district court entered orders denying Babb’s Rule 35 motions. Babb appeals, and argues that in
Docket No. 51191 his sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion. In both cases,
Babb claims the district court erred by relinquishing jurisdiction and denying his Rule 35 motions.
In Docket No. 51191, Babb contends that his sentence is excessive. 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 Docket No. 51191, we cannot say that the district court abused its
discretion.
Next, Babb asserts the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction in
each case. We note that the decision to relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within
the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of
that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); 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. We hold that Babb has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in
relinquishing jurisdiction.
Last, we review whether the district court erred in denying Babb’s Rule 35 motion in each
case. 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

2
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 Babb’s Rule 35 motions, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been
shown.
Therefore, Babb’s judgment of conviction and sentence in Docket No. 51191, and the
district court’s orders relinquishing jurisdiction and denying Babb’s Rule 35 motions in each case,
are affirmed.

3