1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43512 & 43513

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

SHAWN LEE GOLDENSTEIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 409

Filed: March 2, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Orders revoking probation, affirmed; orders denying I.C.R. 35 motions for 

reduction of sentences, affirmed; 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

In Docket No. 43512, Shawn Lee Goldenstein pled guilty to possession of a financial 

transaction card. I.C. § 18-3125(4). The district court sentenced Goldenstein to a unified term of 

five years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. The district court suspended 

the sentence and placed Goldenstein on probation. 

In Docket No. 42513, Goldenstein pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. 

I.C. § 37-2732(c)(I). The district court sentenced Goldenstein to a unified term of four years, 

with a minimum period of confinement of one year, to be served consecutively to Goldenstein’s 
2

sentence for possession of a financial transaction card. As a result of this guilty plea, the district 

court revoked probation in Docket No. 42512 and ordered execution of Goldstein’s original 

sentence. However, the district court retained jurisdiction in both cases and sent Goldstein to 

participate in the rider program. Following successful completion of his rider, the district court 

suspended the sentences and placed Goldstein on probation. 

Thereafter, Goldenstein admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the district 

court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentences. Goldstein 

filed I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of his sentences, which the district court denied. 

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

and denying his I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of his sentences. 

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 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. 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 Goldstein’s Rule 35 motions, 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 either in revoking probation and in ordering 

execution of Goldenstein’s sentences or in denying his Rule 35 motions for reduction of his 

sentences. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and the orders denying Goldstein’s Rule 35 

motions are affirmed.