State of Idaho v. Carl Adair, II Sexual battery of a minor child
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 33270
STATE OF IDAHO,
v.
CARL ADAIR, II,
)
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
)
)
)
)
)
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
)
Boise, December 2007 Term
Opinion No. 14
Filed: January 29, 2008
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Nez
Perce County. Hon. Jeff M. Brudie, District Judge.
The decision of the district court is affirmed.
Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender, for appellant. Justin Curtis argued.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, State Attorney General, for respondent. Ken Jorgenson
argued.
_____________________________
W. JONES, Justice
Defendant-Appellant Carl Adair II (Adair) appeals the district court’s denial of his Rule
35 motion for reduction of sentence. Adair was sentenced to seven years, with three years fixed,
for sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years old. He contends that the sentence
is excessive and that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 motion.
Adair appeals to this Court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Adair plead guilty to sexual battery of a minor child sixteen or seventeen years old under
I.C. § 18-1508A. At sentencing, the trial court retained jurisdiction for four to six months and
sentenced Adair to the Idaho Department of Correction. The trial judge stated that he would
consider placing Adair on probation upon completion of the correctional programs. The North
Idaho Correctional Institution terminated the retained jurisdiction program early by
recommending that the court relinquish jurisdiction. The recommendation was based on two
1
Disciplinary Offense Reports and Adair’s failure to progress in the sex offender assessment
group.
The trial court held a hearing and accepted North Idaho Correctional Institution’s
recommendation to impose the original sentence of seven years, with three years fixed, giving
credit for time already served. Adair filed a Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, but did
not appeal his original sentence. His motion alleged that his sentence was excessive, but failed
to present any new evidence as to why his sentence was excessive. The court denied that
motion.
The following issues are presented to this Court on appeal:
1. Whether this Court is without jurisdiction, in light of this Court’s recent decision in
Huffman, to review the sentence because Adair failed to present any new information to
the lower court in support of his Rule 35 motion.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the Rule 35 motion for
reduction of sentence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence applies to three different situations. State v.
Arambula, 97 Idaho 627, 629, 550 P.2d 130, 132 (1976). It provides a procedure for (1)
correction of an illegal sentence, (2) correction of a sentence imposed in an illegal manner, and
(3) authorizing the court to reduce a lawful sentence that, after further examination, is unduly
harsh. Arambula, 97 Idaho at 629, 550 P.2d at 132. “[A] motion to reduce a legal sentence
imposed in a legal manner is addressed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Arambula,
97 Idaho at 630, 550 P.2d at 133 (citing Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 586
(1969)).
A court does not abuse its discretion if (1) the court recognizes the decision as one of
discretion, (2) the court acts within the bounds of that discretion and applies appropriate legal
standards, and (3) the court reaches the decision through an exercise of reason. State v. Moore,
131 Idaho 814, 819, 965 P.2d 174, 179 (1998) (citing Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho
Power Co., 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991)).
The defendant has the burden of showing that a sentence is excessive if the sentence is
within the statutory limits. State v. Shutz, 143 Idaho 200, 202-03, 141 P.3d 1069, 1071-72
(2006). “A sentence is excessive if it is unreasonable under any rational view of the facts.”
Shutz, 143 Idaho at 203, 141 P.3d at 1072. A Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence is a plea
for leniency. Id. If the original sentence is not excessive, then the defendant must show at the
trial court level that additional facts or information make the sentence excessive in light of that
2
additional information. Id. “An appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a
vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information.” State v.
Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007).
ANALYSIS
This Court has jurisdiction to review a denial of a Rule 35 motion for an excessive
sentence under the abuse of discretion standard.
The State argues that this Court’s recent decision in Huffman denies this Court
jurisdiction to review a denial of a Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence as excessive absent
the presentation of new evidence by the defendant. The State cites only Huffman as the authority
for this proposition. Huffman does not deny this Court jurisdiction to hear this case. This Court
still has the power to review the denial of a Rule 35 motion as an abuse of discretion. See State
v. Huffman, 144 Idaho at ___, 159 P.3d at 840. The Court of Appeals recently addressed this
issue finding that “[although] it might be error for this Court to grant relief on the appeal from
Shumway’s Rule 35 motion because his motion was not supported with new evidence [that] does
not equate to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” State v. Shumway, 144 Idaho 580, ___, 165
P.3d 294, 296 (2007). We agree with the Court of Appeals. Although this Court retains
jurisdiction to hear an appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion, absent the presentation of new
evidence the defendant has not met his initial burden of showing the sentence is excessive in
light of new or additional information. This Court will not use a Rule 35 motion as a vehicle to
review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new evidence. It is assumed that the
original sentence was within the trial court’s sentencing discretion unless the defendant appeals
the original sentence.
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Rule 35 motion for
reduction of sentence.
In Huffman, this Court stated that “[i]f a sentence is within the statutory limits, a motion
for reduction of sentence under Rule 35 is a plea for leniency, and we review the denial of the
motion for an abuse of discretion.” Huffman, 144 Idaho at ___, 159 P.3d at 840 (citations
omitted). However, absent the presentation of new evidence, an appeal from a Rule 35 motion
merely asks this Court to review the underlying sentence. Id. Without additional information
being presented, there is no basis for this Court to find that the denial of the Rule 35 motion was
an abuse of discretion. Id.
3
Adair argues that Huffman is not binding retroactive authority. A judicial rule should be
given only prospective effect when the rule announced in the more recent case overrules
precedent upon which parties may have justifiably relied. State v. Tipton, 99 Idaho 670, 672,
587 P.2d 305, 307 (1978). If a case does not overrule past precedents, then this Court need not
decide whether the governing case may be applied retroactively. State v. Moon, 140 Idaho 609,
612, 97 P.3d 476, 479 (Ct. App. 2004).
This Court has never reviewed the original sentence in a Rule 35 motion, when the
defendant did not appeal the original sentence and no new evidence was presented with the Rule
35 motion. In State v. Jones, the defendant appealed the denial of his Rule 35 motion, but not his
original sentence. State v. Jones, 106 Idaho 837, 683 P.2d 873 (1984). This Court reviewed the
denial of a Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence; however, we did not review his original
sentence. Jones, 106 Idaho at 838, 683 P.2d at 874. This Court only reviewed the denial of the
motion. Id. “[T]he sole issue raised is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the
motion to reconsider the sentence.” Id. at 837, 683 P.2d at 873. Additionally, in State v.
Huffman, this Court stated that “[a]n appeal from the denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used
as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent the presentation of new information.”
Huffman, 144 Idaho at ___, 159 P.3d at 840. Huffman only appealed the denial of his Rule 35
motion, and not the original sentence.
In every other Rule 35 motion this Court has reviewed, the defendant has appealed both
the original sentence and the denial of the Rule 35 motion. See Shutz, 143 Idaho at 202, 141
P.3d at 1071; State v. Hansen, 138 Idaho 791, 793, 69 P.3d 1052, 1054 (2003); Moore, 131
Idaho at 819, 965 P.2d at 179; State v. Jackson, 130 Idaho 293, 939 P.2d 1372, (1997). Since
Huffman did not overrule any prior precedents of this Court, there is no question that Huffman is
applicable to the present case.
A trial court is granted the authority to reduce a sentence if it is excessive in light of new
or additional information. Huffman, 144 Idaho at ___, 159 P.3d at 840. Adair’s Rule 35 motion
was made based on “the record and files herein and upon the information provided to the Court
through the Pre-sentence Investigation Report and the evidence produced at the sentencing
hearing.” No additional information was provided to the trial court to indicate that the sentence
was excessive. The trial court operated within its discretion when it denied Adair’s Rule 35
motion for reduction of sentence.
4
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court denying Adair’s Rule 35 motion
for reduction of sentence is affirmed.
Chief Justice EISMANN and Justices BURDICK, J. JONES and HORTON CONCUR.
5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
