State of Idaho v. June Marie Spencer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52883

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 27, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JUNE MARIE SPENCER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Payette
County. Hon. Kiley Stuchlik, District Judge.

Order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
June Marie Spencer pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-
2732(c)(1). The district court sentenced Spencer to a unified term of four years, with a minimum
period of confinement of one year. The district court suspended Spencer’s sentence and placed
her on probation. Thereafter, Spencer violated the terms of her probation. The district court
revoked Spencer’s probation and ordered execution of her original sentence. At the disposition
hearing, the parties agreed that pursuant to I.C.R. 35, Spencer’s sentence should be reduced to an
indeterminate term of three years. The district court granted the parties’ request and reduced
Spencer’s sentence to an indeterminate term of three years. Spencer then filed an I.C.R. 35 motion

1
for reduction of her sentence, which the district court denied. Mindful that Spencer did not submit
any additional information in support of her motion, she appeals and argues that the district court
erred in denying her 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). Spencer acknowledges she did not
satisfy this standard. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Spencer’s Rule 35 motion is
affirmed.

2