1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 40804/40805

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CHRISTY ANN CRANDALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 713

Filed: October 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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 Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified ten-year

sentence with two-year determinate term for grand theft, affirmed. Judgment of 

conviction and concurrent unified sentence of ten years with two years 

determinate for forgery, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 40805, Christy Ann Crandall was convicted of grand theft, Idaho 

Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence with 

a two-year determinate term and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained 

jurisdiction period, the court suspended the sentence and placed Crandall on supervised 

probation for ten years. Subsequently, in Docket No. 40804, Crandall was convicted of forgery, 

I.C. § 18-3601, in violation of her probation in Docket No. 40805. The district court revoked 

probation in Docket No. 40805 and ordered execution of the underlying sentence. The district 
2

court imposed a unified ten-year sentence with a two-year determinate term for forgery, to run 

concurrently with the grand theft sentence. Crandall filed Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motions for 

reduction of her sentences in both cases, which were denied. On appeal, Crandall does not 

challenge the district court’s decision to revoke probation or the denial of her Rule 35 motions, 

but argues only that the district court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte reduce her 

sentence in the grand theft case, and that her sentence in the forgery case is excessive.

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 the 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 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 or in ordering 

execution of Crandall’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking 

probation in Docket No. 40805 and directing execution of Crandall’s previously suspended 

sentence, and the judgment of conviction and sentence in Docket No. 40804 are affirmed.