1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 42391/42392

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JEREMY DEAN AMEN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 549

Filed: July 10, 2015

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and directing execution of previously suspended 

sentences, affirmed; judgment of conviction and sentence, affirmed; orders 

denying I.C.R. 35 motions, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, 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

Jeremy Dean Amen pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct with minor under sixteen,

Idaho Code § 18-1508 (Docket No. 42391). The district court imposed concurrent unified 

sentences of twenty years with eight years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following the 

period of retained jurisdiction, the district court placed Amen on probation for a period of six 

years. Subsequently Amen admitted to violating his probation by committing a new crime 

(felony possession of methamphetamine) and the district court revoked his probation and ordered 

execution of the original sentences without reduction.
2

Amen pled guilty to felony possession of methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1)

(Docket No. 42392). The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years with two years 

determinate to be served consecutive to his sentences in Docket No. 42391.

 Amen filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for sentence reduction in both cases, which 

the district court denied. Amen appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion 

by revoking probation in Docket No. 42391, by imposing an excessive sentence in Docket 

No. 42392, and by denying his I.C.R. 35 motions.

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.

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). 
3

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. 

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 Amen’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Amen’s 

Rule 35 motion is affirmed. 

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation, imposing sentence, or in 

ordering execution of Amen’s sentences without modification. Therefore, the order revoking 

probation and directing execution of Amen’s previously suspended sentences is affirmed; 

Amen’s judgment of conviction and sentence for possession is affirmed; and, the orders denying 

I.C.R. 35 motions are affirmed.