February 14, 2013
STATE OF IDAHO,
WILL ROGER LYNN,
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.
2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 363
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten-year sentence with five-year determinate term for injury to child, affirmed.
Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge
Will Roger Lynn pled guilty to injury to child, a felony. Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The district court imposed a determinate ten-year sentence, suspended the sentence and placed Lynn on probation for seven years. Subsequently, Lynn admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. However, on its own motion, the district court reduced the sentence to a unified term of ten years with five years determinate. Lynn appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by failing to retain jurisdiction upon revocation of his probation.
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 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 by failing to retain jurisdiction upon revocation of probation. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Lynn's reduced sentence is affirmed.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.