50811 State v. Braunschweig

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50810 & 50811

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 25, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JACOB ARTHUR BRAUNSCHWEIG, ) 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. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Appeals from orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of sentences,
dismissed.

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 HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
In these consolidated cases and pursuant to an I.C.R. 11 plea agreement, Jacob Arthur
Braunschweig pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1), and
possession of a financial transaction card, I.C. § 18-3125. In exchange for his guilty pleas,
additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent violator. 1 In
accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, the district court sentenced Braunschweig to a

1
Braunschweig also pled guilty to and was sentenced for misdemeanor possession of drug
paraphernalia. However, this judgment of conviction and challenge are not at issue on appeal.

1
unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, for possession
of a controlled substance and a concurrent, unified term of five years, with a minimum period of
confinement of three years. Per the stipulation of the parties in the plea agreement, the district
court retained jurisdiction and sent Braunschweig to participate in the rider program. Following
completion of the rider, the district court suspended Braunschweig’s sentence and placed him on
probation.
Thereafter, Braunschweig violated the terms of his probation, and the district court revoked
probation and ordered execution of his original sentences. Despite specifically waiving his right
to file an I.C.R. 35 motion in the plea agreement, Braunschweig filed I.C.R. 35 motions, which the
district court denied. Braunschweig appeals, arguing that the district court erred in denying his
I.C.R. 35 motions.
To the extent Braunschweig argues that the district court should have placed him back on
probation, Braunschweig has failed to show error in the district court’s discretionary decision not
to do so.
Concerning Braunschweig’s argument in which his relief seeks a reduction of his
sentences, we hold that his appellate challenge to the excessiveness of his sentence has been
waived by his plea agreement. See I.C.R. 11(f)(1); State v. Rodriguez, 142 Idaho 786, 787, 133
P.3d 1251, 1252 (Ct. App. 2006). Therefore, appeals from the district court’s orders denying
Braunschweig’s I.C.R. 35 motions are dismissed.

2