1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40164

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DANIEL JAMES CARTER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 705

Filed: October 10, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Canyon County. Hon. Renae J. Hoff, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended ten-year sentence 

for felony driving under the influence, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion 

for reduction of sentence, affirmed. 

Robyn Fyffe of Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Daniel James Carter pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004 

and 18-8005. The district court imposed a ten-year determinate sentence, but retained 

jurisdiction. Following successful completion of his retained jurisdiction, the district court 

suspended the sentence and placed Carter on probation. Carter admitted to violating the terms of 

his probation by being charged with new crimes. The district court revoked Carter’s probation 

and the suspended sentence was ordered into execution. During the disposition hearing on his 

probation violation, Carter made an oral motion for an I.C.R. 35 reduction of his sentence, which 

the district court denied. Thereafter, Carter filed a successive Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

his sentence based on new information, which the district court also denied. On appeal, Carter
2

does not challenge the district court’s decision to revoke probation, but argues only that this 

sentence is excessive and that the district court denied his successive Rule 35 motion.

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 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this 

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

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 provides that no defendant may file more than one motion 

seeking a reduction of sentence. The prohibition of successive motions under Rule 35 is 

jurisdictional. State v. Bottens, 137 Idaho 730, 732, 52 P.3d 875, 877 (Ct. App. 2002). Because 

Carter’s Rule 35 motion was successive, the district court did note err in denying Carter’s 

successive Rule35 motion.

The district court’s order revoking probation and imposing sentence and the district 

court’s order denying Carter’s Rule 35 motion are affirmed.