Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State of Idaho v. Padriac Arthur Brunton

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO


August 3, 2012

STATE OF IDAHO, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
PADRIAC ARTHUR BRUNTON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Butte County. Hon. Joel E. Tingey, District Judge.

Per curiam.

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 576

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified five-year sentence with one-year determinate term for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge

Padriac Arthur Brunton pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(5). The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a one-year determinate term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Brunton on supervised probation for five years. Subsequently, Brunton admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence and again retained jurisdiction. Following the second period of retained jurisdiction, the district court again placed Brunton on supervised probation for a period of three years. Several months later, Brunton was found to be in violation of his probation by the district court and his probation was revoked and the underlying sentence executed. Brunton appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and ordering his underlying sentence executed without reduction. It is within the trial court's discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19-2603, 20-222; State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 1054, 772 P.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 (Ct. App. 1988). In determining whether to revoke probation, a court must examine whether the probation is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society. State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 275, 899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1995); Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; Hass, 114 Idaho at 558, 758 P.2d at 717. The court may, after a probation violation has been established, order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). The court may also order a period of retained jurisdiction. State v. Urrabazo, 150 Idaho 158, 162, 244 P.3d 1244, 1248 (2010). A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 P.2d at 327.

Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a 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).

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 the probation. Id.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering execution of Brunton's original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Brunton's previously suspended sentence is affirmed.

20120803

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.