1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40842

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

RICHARD DEAN HENDERSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 366

Filed: February 7, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Melissa Moody, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified three-year

sentence with one-year determinate term for aggravated assault, 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 GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Richard Dean Henderson pled guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho Code § 18-901(b), and 

the district court imposed a unified three-year sentence with a one-year determinate term. The 

court suspended the sentence and placed Henderson on probation. This probation was 

subsequently revoked and the suspended sentence ordered into execution. Henderson filed an 

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. On 

appeal, Henderson does not challenge the district court’s decision to revoke probation, but argues 

that the district court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte reduce his sentence upon 

revoking probation and in denying his I.C.R. 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 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). 

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 the probation. Id. Thus, this Court will 

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. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 

P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012).

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 the new information submitted with Henderson’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude 

no abuse of discretion has been shown. 

Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Henderson’s 

previously suspended sentence and the order denying Henderson’s Rule 35 motion are affirmed.