State of Idaho v. Kerchelle Nicole Pickard- Kamps

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52785

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 30, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KERCHELLE NICOLE PICKARD- ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
KAMPS, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of four years for aggravated
assault, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of 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 TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Kerchelle Nicole Pickard-Kamps pled guilty to aggravated assault. I.C. §§ 18-901(a) and
18-905(b). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an
allegation that she is a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Pickard-Kamps to a
determinate term of four years. Pickard-Kamps filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court

1
denied. Pickard-Kamps appeals, arguing that her sentence is excessive and that the district court
erred in denying her Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence.1
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.
Next, we review whether the district court erred in denying Pickard-Kamps’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 Pickard-Kamps’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of
discretion has been shown.
Therefore, Pickard-Kamps’s judgment of conviction and sentence, and the district court’s
order denying Pickard-Kamps’s Rule 35 motion, are affirmed.

1
Pickard-Kamp also pled guilty to two misdemeanors. However, these judgments of
conviction and sentences are not challenged on appeal.

2