State of Idaho v. Kylie Dana Leighton

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50304

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 29, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KYLIE DANA LEIGHTON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Nancy Baskin, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentences of ten years, with two and one-half
years determinate, for two counts of felony possession of a controlled substance
with intent to deliver, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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 LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Kylie Dana Leighton was found guilty of two counts of felony possession of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a), along with two misdemeanor counts of
possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c), and one count of misdemeanor possession
of drug paraphernalia, I.C. § 37-2734A. Leighton admitted to the persistent violator sentencing
enhancement, I.C. § 19-2514. The district court imposed a unified concurrent sentence of ten
years, with two and one-half years determinate, for each count of felony possession of a controlled
substance with intent to deliver, with the persistent violator enhancement. The district court

1
ordered credit for time served for each of the misdemeanors. Leighton filed an Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Leighton appeals asserting the district court
abused its discretion by not retaining jurisdiction and by denying her Rule 35 motion.
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 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 retaining jurisdiction was not
appropriate.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Leighton’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 information
submitted with Leighton’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Leighton’s judgment of conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order
denying Leighton’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

2