1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 40132/40133

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CYNTHIA ANN HUNNICUTT,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 505

Filed: May 22, 2013

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Orders relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed; judgments of conviction and unified 

sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for 

felony battery on a police officer, and concurrent unified sentence of ten years 

with three years determinate, for felony driving under the influence, affirmed; 

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In these consolidated appeals, Cynthia Ann Hunnicutt pled guilty to felony battery on a 

police officer (Docket No. 40132). Idaho Code §§ 18-915(3), 18-903. The district court 

imposed a unified five-year sentence with a one-year determinate term, but after a period of 

retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Hunnicutt on probation for a period of 

five years. 

Approximately one year later, Hunnicutt was charged with felony driving under the 

influence, I.C. §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(6) (Docket No. 40133). The State filed a motion for 
2

probation violation in Docket No. 40132. Hunnicutt admitted to violating several terms of the 

probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the 

original sentence in Docket No. 40132, and retained jurisdiction. In Docket No. 40133, the 

district court imposed a concurrent unified sentence of ten years with three years determinate and 

retained jurisdiction. 

Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction 

and ordered Hunnicutt’s sentences executed. Hunnicutt timely filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35

motion applicable to both cases, which the district court denied. Hunnicutt appeals asserting that 

the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction, by imposing excessive 

sentences, and by denying her Rule 35 motion.

We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to 

relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district 

court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 

Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-

97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the 

information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Hunnicutt

has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the orders

relinquishing jurisdiction.

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 Hunnicutt’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 
3

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, the district court’s orders relinquishing jurisdiction, Hunnicutt’s judgments of 

conviction and sentences, and the district court’s order denying Hunnicutt’s Rule 35 motion, are 

affirmed.