1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46087

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRITTANY JEAN WARD, aka 

SEAMON, aka TIMLICK, aka WARDTIMLICK, aka WILLSON, aka 

WILSON, aka MIKKELSON, aka 

KAYLOR,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: February 7, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge. 

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

period of confinement of four years, for grand theft by deception, affirmed; order 

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

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Brittany Jean Ward pled guilty to grand theft by deception. Idaho Code § 18-2403(2)(a). 

The district court sentenced Ward to a unified term of fourteen years with four years determinate. 

Ward filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Ward appeals 

asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by 

denying her I.C.R. 35 motion.
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). 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 Ward’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). Upon review of the record, including 

any new information submitted with Ward’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion 

has been shown. 

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

denying Ward’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.