1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41392

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

LACEY MARK SIVAK,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 828

Filed: November 25, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and determinate life sentence for felony first degree 

murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, affirmed; order 

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ian H. Thomson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; L. LaMont Anderson, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Lacey Mark Sivak was found guilty of felony first degree murder, I.C. §§ 18-4001 and 

18-4003, and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, I.C. § 19-2520. Sivak was initially 

sentenced to death. After numerous appeals, several capital resentencings and years of litigation 

in both the state and federal courts, Sivak’s death sentence was vacated and his case was 

scheduled for resentencing. Following an updated presentence report, testimony by witnesses 

and a resentencing hearing, the district court sentenced Sivak to a determinate term of life 

imprisonment. Sivak filed an I.C.R 35 motion, which the district court denied. Sivak appeals.
2

The question before this Court is not what sentence it would have imposed but, rather, 

whether the district court abused its discretion. State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139, 148-49, 191 

P.3d 217, 226-27 (2008). Where reasonable minds might differ, the discretion vested in the trial 

court will be respected and this Court will not supplant the views of the trial court with its own. 

State v. Windom, 150 Idaho 873, 875, 253 P.3d 310, 312 (2011). 

A fixed life sentence requires a high degree of certainty that the perpetrator could never 

be safely released back into society or that the nature of the offense requires that the individual 

spend the rest of his or her life behind bars. Windom, 150 Idaho at 876, 253 P.3d at 313. See 

also State v. Li, 131 Idaho 126, 129, 952 P.2d 1262, 1265 (Ct. App. 1998); State v. Eubank, 114

Idaho 635, 638, 759 P.2d 926, 929 (Ct. App. 1988).

Sivak contends that his sentence is excessive. The maximum sentence the district court 

could have imposed was the death penalty. The sentence imposed did not exceed the maximum. 

Therefore, Sivak must show that the sentence is unreasonable under any reasonable view of the 

facts. See Windom, 150 Idaho at 875, 253 P.3d at 312. Sivak’s crime is summarized as follows: 

On April 6, 1981, Dixie Wilson, an attendant at a self service gas station, 

was discovered near death by a customer. She had been stabbed numerous times 

and shot several times. Evidence indicated she had also been sexually molested. 

She later died from her wounds.

Witnesses saw two men inside the station with Wilson shortly before the 

murder, one they identified as Randall Bainbridge. [Sivak] and Bainbridge were 

seen together before and after the killing.

[Sivak] admitted being present during the robbery and murder, but 

claimed he was merely an innocent bystander. He claimed he did not participate 

in the robbery and murder and did not carry a firearm. However, [Sivak’s] 

fingerprint was found on the murder weapon.

Evidence indicated [Sivak] had previously worked at the station, was 

known to the victim, had expressed animosity toward her, and had called to 

inquire who would be on duty at the station on April 6, 1981. The gun used in the 

attack was found in a storage shed rented by [Sivak]. 

State v. Sivak, 105 Idaho 900, 902, 674 P.2d 396, 398 (1983). 

At resentencing, the district court specifically recognized that the sentencing decision was 

committed to its discretion and that it was required to act within the bounds of that discretion 

through an exercise of reason. The district court discussed the goals of sentencing, as well as the 

factors set forth in I.C. § 19-2521. In sentencing Sivak, the district court concluded that Sivak’s 

trial testimony and allocution were not credible. The district court concluded that Sivak’s crime 
3

was unprovoked by the victim and that Sivak lacked remorse in this case, had never been a lawabiding citizen, and society needed to be protected from him. 

Sivak argues that the district court did not consider certain mitigating factors at 

sentencing. Specifically, Sivak asserts that the district court did not consider his youthfulness at 

the time of the crime, his potential for rehabilitation, his continued health problems, the abuse he 

suffered as a child, the role that alcohol and drugs play in his life and underlying crime, and the 

continued support from his family and friends. It appears from the record, however, that the 

district court did consider all of these factors in sentencing Sivak. Given Sivak’s record of law 

violations, the egregiousness of the crime and the lack potential for rehabilitation as found by the 

district court, we cannot say that the district court abused its sentencing discretion. 

Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Sivak’s Rule 35 motion. A 

motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 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). In conducting our review of the grant 

or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for 

determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 

P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871-73. Upon review of 

the record, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

Therefore, Sivak’s judgment of conviction and determinate life sentence, and the district 

court’s order denying Sivak’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.