State of Idaho v. Jaycee Nicole Lewis

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50593

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 21, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JAYCEE NICOLE LEWIS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum
period of confinement of four years, for possession of a controlled substance with
the intent to deliver, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of
sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Jaycee Nicole Lewis pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with the intent to
deliver. I.C. § 37-2732(a). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court sentenced Lewis to a unified term of twenty years, with a minimum period of
confinement of four years. Lewis filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Lewis
appeals, arguing that her sentence is excessive and that the district court should have retained

1
jurisdiction. Lewis further argues that the district court erred in denying her Rule 35 motion for
reduction of sentence.
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. 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same
conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App.
2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion.
We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to
relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district
court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102
Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97
(Ct. App. 1990). The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court
to obtain additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative
potential and is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct.
App. 2005). Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. Id. There can be no abuse of
discretion if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the defendant is not
a suitable candidate for probation. Id.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Lewis’s Rule 35 motion. A
motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 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 Lewis’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown.

2
Therefore, Lewis’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s order
denying Lewis’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

3