Court Opinion

ID: 881717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 00:45:07.678051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:45.766422
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 38499

STATE OF IDAHO,                                   )     2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 741
                                                  )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                      )     Filed: December 9, 2011
                                                  )
v.                                                )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                  )
RANDALL DEAN OLSON,                               )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                  )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                       )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                  )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Ada County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified ten-year
       sentence with three-year determinate term for felony driving under the
       influence, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of
       sentence, affirmed.

       Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Sara B. Thomas, Chief,
       Appellate Unit, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                         Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
                                    and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Randall Dean Olson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, I.C. §§ 18-8004,
18-8005(5), and the district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence with a three-year
determinate term. The court suspended the sentence and placed Olson on probation. This
probation was subsequently revoked and the suspended sentence ordered into execution. Olson
filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Olson
appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the
sentence is excessive.

                                                 1
       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
326, 834 P.2d at 328; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). 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 326, 834 P.2d at 328.
       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.
       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 Olson’s original sentence without modification.
       Olson asserts that the district court erred in denying his Rule 35 motion for reduction of
sentence. 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

                                                2
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). In conducting our
review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the
same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde,
113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at871-
73. Having reviewed the record in this case, Olson has failed to show that the district court
abused its discretion in denying his Rule 35 motion.
       Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Olson’s previously
suspended sentence and the district court’s order denying Olson’s Rule 35 motion are affirmed.

                                                3