November 29, 2012
STATE OF IDAHO,
ADEKUSIBE MARK ONIBOKUN,
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Timothy Hansen, District Judge.
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 747
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified fifteen-year sentence with five-year determinate term for sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years of age, affirmed; order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of sentence, affirmed.
Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Adekusibe Mark Onibokun was convicted of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen years of age, Idaho Code § 18-1506. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years with five years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Onibokun on supervised probation for fifteen years with the condition that he serve 180 days in the county jail and complete the Active Behavioral Change Program. Onibokun subsequently admitted to violating several terms of his probation and the district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the underlying sentence, and retained jurisdiction. At the end of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Onibokun's sentence and reinstated supervised probation for fifteen years.
Onibokun again violated probation and the district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the sentence, and retained jurisdiction a second time. Following the second period of retained jurisdiction, Onibokun was again placed on supervised probation. After a third report of probation violation was filed, the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentence. Onibokun filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Onibokun appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by revoking Onibokun's probation without again retaining jurisdiction and by denying his Rule 35 motion.
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 is 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.
A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 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). In conducting our review of the grant or denial of a Rule 35 motion, we consider the entire record and apply the same criteria used for determining the reasonableness of the original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); Lopez, 106 Idaho at 449-51, 680 P.2d at 871- 73.
Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation and ordering execution of Onibokun's original sentence without retaining jurisdiction, or by denying Onibokun's Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Onibokun's previously suspended sentence and the order denying his Rule 35 motion are affirmed.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.