52209/52210 State v. Huber

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52208/52209/52210

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 21, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DUSTIN WILLIS SHAWN HUBER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.

Orders denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, 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 HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
This appeal involved three consolidated cases. In Docket No. 52208, Dustin Willis Shawn
Huber pleaded guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c)(1). In Docket No. 52209, Huber pleaded guilty to felony possession of a
controlled substance, methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1), and grand theft by possession of
stolen property, I.C. §§ 18-2403(4), -2407(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges
were dismissed. In Docket No. 52208, the district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years,
with a minimum period of incarceration of three years, and for each charge in Docket No. 52209,
the district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of three years, to be served concurrently with each other and with the sentence in
Docket No. 52208. After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the

1
sentences and placed Huber on probation. While on probation, Huber received a new criminal
charge in Docket No. 52210. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Huber admitted to violating terms of
the probation in Docket Nos. 52208 and 52209, and entered an Alford1 plea to felony possession
of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1), in Docket No. 52210, and the
State agreed to dismiss the information part II. In Docket Nos. 52208 and 52209, the district court
revoked Huber’s probation and in Docket No. 52210, the district court imposed a unified sentence
of four and one-half years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one and one-half years, and
retained jurisdiction in all three cases. After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court
suspended all three sentences and placed Huber on probation.
Huber admitted to violating terms of the probation and the district court continued Huber
on probation in all three cases. Shortly thereafter, Huber again admitted to violating terms of the
probation and the district court continued Huber on probation but extended Huber’s term of
probation by one year in each case. Huber again admitted to violating terms of the probation and
the district court again continued Huber on probation in all three cases. Subsequently, Huber again
admitted to violating terms of the probation and the district court consequently revoked probation
and executed the underlying sentences in all three cases. Huber filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35(b)
motion in all three cases requesting the district court reconsider revoking probation, or
alternatively, reduce Huber’s sentences in part because, according to Huber, he had already served
the determinate portion of each sentence. After a hearing, the district court denied the motions.
Huber appeals.
A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35(b) 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
an I.C.R. 35(b) 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 Huber’s I.C.R. 35(b) motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s orders denying Huber’s I.C.R. 35(b)
motions are affirmed.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).
2