1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50225

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEFFREY SCOTT HANSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: May 12, 2023

Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Payette

County. Hon. Kiley Stuchlik, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of eight years, for lewd conduct with a child under sixteen, 

affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Elizabeth A. Allred, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Jeffrey Scott Hansen pled guilty to lewd conduct with a child under sixteen. I.C. § 18-

1508. The district court sentenced Hansen to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of eight years. Hansen filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court 

denied. Hansen appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court erred in 

denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.
2

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 this case, we cannot say that 

the district court abused its discretion.

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Hansen’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 Hansen’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. 

Therefore, Hansen’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order 

denying Hansen’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.