1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 46163/46164/46165

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

BRENDA KC AUTREY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: May 31, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge. 

Judgments of conviction; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of 

sentence; and order revoking probation and execution of sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 

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; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Brenda KC Autrey pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance (Docket No. 

46163). I.C. § 37-2732(c). The district court sentenced Autrey to a unified term of five years 

with three years determinate. The district court also revoked her probation in two other cases 

and imposed her underlying concurrent sentences of five years with two years determinate

(Docket Nos. 46164 and 46165). Autrey filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentences, which the district court denied (Docket No. 46163). Autrey appeals, contending that 

the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence, revoking probation,

and denying the Rule 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 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

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 I.C.R. 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. I.C. § 19-2601. 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. In reviewing the propriety of a probation revocation, the focus of 

the inquiry is the conduct underlying the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. State v. 

Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Thus, this Court will consider 

the elements of the record before the trial court relevant to the revocation of probation issues 

which are properly made part of the record on appeal. Id.

When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of 

probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original 

judgment. State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our 

review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring 

between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Thus, this Court will 
3

consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record 

on appeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced 

the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. Morgan, 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at 

838. 

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 Autrey’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence (Docket No. 

46163), by revoking probation (Docket Nos. 46164 and 46165), or in denying Autrey’s Rule 35 

motion (Docket No. 46163). Therefore, Autrey’s judgments of conviction and sentences, order 

denying Rule 35 motion, and the orders revoking probation and directing execution of Autrey’s 

previously suspended sentences, are affirmed.