State of Idaho v. Carly Gay Sullivan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52037

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 29, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CARLY GAY SULLIVAN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge.

Order revoking probation and ordering execution of underlying sentence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Carly Gay Sullivan pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge that she was a
persistent violator was dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with
a minimum period of incarceration of three years, but after a period of retained jurisdiction,
suspended the sentence and placed Sullivan on probation. Subsequently, Sullivan admitted to
violating the terms of the probation and the district court revoked and reinstated Sullivan’s
probation for an additional three years. Sullivan again admitted to violating the terms of the
probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the

1
original sentence. Sullivan appeals contending that the district court abused its discretion in
revoking probation and that the sentence 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). 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).
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. 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 these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion in revoking probation or in imposing sentence.
Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Sullivan’s previously
suspended sentence is affirmed.

2