1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39296

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHESTER LEE OLSEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 632

Filed: September 12, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia

County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten-year sentence 

with five-year determinate term for delivery of a controlled substance, affirmed; 

order denying oral I.C.R. 35 motion, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Chester Lee Olsen pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 37-

2732(a)(1)(A). The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence with a five-year

determinate term, to run concurrently with a Canyon County case, but after a period of retained 

jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Olsen on probation. Subsequently, Olsen

admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked 

probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and denied Olsen’s oral request for a 

sentence reduction. Olsen appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in 

revoking probation and by denying his oral request for reduction of sentence.
2

It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and 

conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19-2603, 20-222; State v. Beckett, 122 

Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 1054, 772 

P.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 (Ct. App. 

1988). In determining whether to revoke probation, a court must examine whether the probation 

is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society. State v. 

Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 275, 899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1995); Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 

P.2d at 327; Hass, 114 Idaho at 558, 758 P.2d at 717. The court may, after a probation violation 

has been established, order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the 

court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 

325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). 

The court may also order a period of retained jurisdiction. State v. Urrabazo, 150 Idaho 158, 

162, 244 P.3d 1244, 1248 (2010). A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal 

only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 

P.2d at 327.

Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review 

and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a 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). 

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). 

An Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is a request for leniency which is addressed to the 

sound discretion of the sentencing 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, 159 P.3d 838 (2007). Our focus on review is upon the nature of the 

offense and the character of the offender. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 

1184 (Ct. App. 1982). Where a sentence is not illegal, the appellant must show that it is 

unreasonably harsh in light of the primary objective of protecting society and the related goals of 
3

deterrence, rehabilitation and retribution. State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145, 814 P.2d 401, 

405 (1991), overruled on other grounds by State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 825 P.2d 482 (1992); 

State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982).

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we 

cannot say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering 

execution of Olsen’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking 

probation and directing execution of Olsen’s previously suspended sentence and the order 

denying Olsen’s oral Rule 35 motion are affirmed.