1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 40006/40009

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JASON TERRY DEEMS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 497

Filed: May 17, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. John T. Mitchell, District Judge. 

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

with three-year determinate term for possession of marijuana, and consecutive 

twenty-year unified sentence with two years determinate for possession of 

oxycodone with intent to deliver, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion, 

affirmed.

Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, 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, Jason Terry Deems pled guilty to possession of marijuana

(Docket No. 40006). Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). The district court imposed a unified five-year

sentence with a three-year determinate term, suspended the sentence and placed Deems on 

probation for a period of five years. Approximately one year later, Deems was charged with 

possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and concealment of evidence, as well 

as violating probation (Docket No. 40009). Deems pled guilty and the district court revoked 

probation in Docket No. 40006, executed the original unified five years with three years 

determinate sentence, and retained jurisdiction. In Docket No. 40009, the district court imposed 
2

a unified twenty-year sentence with two years determinate to be served consecutive to the 

sentence in Docket No. 40006, and retained jurisdiction. After a period of retained jurisdiction, 

the district court suspended the sentences in both cases and placed Deems on probation for five 

years. After another probation violation, the district court again retained jurisdiction and, 

following the period of retained jurisdiction, suspended Deems’ sentences, again placing him on 

probation. Subsequently, Deems again admitted to violating several terms of his probation, and 

the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentences 

to run consecutively. Deems filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reconsideration of 

sentences, which the district court denied.

Deems appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking 

probation and by denying his Rule 35 motion.

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. 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.
3

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). 

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. 

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). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new information in support of Deems’ 

Rule 35 motion was presented, review of the sentence by this Court is precluded. 

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the records in these cases, we 

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

execution of Deems’ original sentences without modification. Therefore, the order revoking 

probation and directing execution of Deems’ previously suspended sentences and the order 

denying Deems’ Rule 35 motion are affirmed.