State of Idaho v. Kortney Floy Kruse

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52485

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 7, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KORTNEY FLOY KRUSE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Javier L. Gabiola, District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Kortney Floy Kruse pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-
2732(c)(1). In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge that she is a persistent violator
was dismissed.1 The district court sentenced Kruse to a unified term of six years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent Kruse to
participate in the rider program. Following completion of her rider, the district court relinquished

1
Kruse also pled guilty to a charge in an unrelated case and addition charges and a persistent
violator allegation were dismissed in that case as well.

1
jurisdiction. Kruse filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of her sentence, which the district court
denied. Mindful that she did not submit any new evidence, Kruse 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). Kruse acknowledges she did not
satisfy this standard. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Kruse’s Rule 35 motion is
affirmed.

2