Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 635
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
OPINION AND SHALL NOT
BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified sentence of six years, with two years determinate, for delivery of controlled substance, affirmed.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Zachary Jude Saya pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance. Idaho Code § 18-2732(a)(1)(A). The district court imposed a unified sentence of six years, with two years determinate; however, the court suspended the sentence and placed Saya on probation. Approximately four months later, Saya admitted to violating several terms of the probation, but the district court continued probation with the condition that Saya serve thirty days in jail. Almost two years later, Saya was again found to have violated the terms of the probation. The district court again continued the probation with the condition that Saya serve ten days in jail. Subsequently, Saya was once again found to have violated several terms of the probation. The district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence, but retained jurisdiction with the recommendation that Saya participate in a rider program. At the conclusion of the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court placed Saya back on probation. Several months later, Saya was found to have violated the terms of the probation. The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Saya filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence, which the district court denied. Saya now appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that his sentence is excessive.
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 Saya's original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Saya's previously suspended sentence is affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...