Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

State of Idaho v. Ronnie Nicholas Radford

November 29, 2012

STATE OF IDAHO,
PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,
v.
RONNIE NICHOLAS RADFORD,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.



Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Hon. Gregory S. Anderson, District Judge.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gutierrez, Judge

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 749

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Order revoking probation and executing suspended sentence of a unified term of five years, with one and one-half years determinate, for burglary, affirmed.

Ronnie Nicholas Radford appeals from the district court's order revoking his probation and executing his suspended sentence, previously imposed following his entry of a guilty plea to burglary. Specifically, Radford argues the Idaho Supreme Court denied him due process when it denied his motion to augment the record with transcripts of hearings that occurred prior to the revocation of his probation. Additionally, Radford argues that the district court abused its discretion when it failed to sua sponte reduce his sentence upon revoking probation. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

I.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The criminal case underlying this appeal arose from a charge of burglary and Radford's entry of a guilty plea to that offense. Pursuant to a plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend probation and not oppose a withheld judgment. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with one and one-half years determinate, but suspended the sentence and placed Radford on probation for a term of four years beginning in January 2008 with the additional order that Radford serve ninety days jail time at the discretion of the court.

In August 2008, the State filed a report alleging probation violations. Radford admitted that he failed to report to his probation officer, changed residence without prior approval from his probation officer, and absconded from supervision. After the admission hearing, the district court ordered a substance abuse evaluation. In October 2008, upon review of the evaluator's recommendations, the district court continued the probation, but imposed additional terms that required Radford to complete an intensive outpatient treatment program, as recommended by the evaluator, and participate in problem solving court as directed by his probation officer.

Radford initially complied with the new probation terms by entering the family drug court. However, Radford was suspended from family drug court in August 2011 for missing treatment groups and using alcohol and illegal substances. Later that month, the State again filed a report of probation violations due to Radford's failure to complete the outpatient treatment program, suspension from the family drug court, failure to complete community service, failure to earn his GED, leaving his assigned district without permission, association with drug users to purchase illegal drugs, and consumption of alcohol and prescription medications not prescribed to him. Radford admitted to most of the violations,*fn1 and after the district court conducted an evidentiary hearing, it found Radford had committed the remainder of the alleged violations. The district court then revoked Radford's probation and executed the suspended sentence. Radford timely filed an appeal.

Pending appeal, Radford filed a motion to augment the record and suspend the briefing schedule, requesting that the record on appeal be augmented with various transcripts. The State objected to augmenting the record, and the Idaho Supreme Court entered an order denying Radford's motion. Upon assignment to this Court, Radford presents two issues: (1) whether the Idaho Supreme Court denied him due process when it denied his motion to augment the record; and (2) whether the district court abused its discretion when it failed to sua sponte reduce Radford's sentence after it revoked his probation.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Denial of the Motion to Augment ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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