1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 45006, 45007, 45008 & 45009

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

HERLINDA RESENDIZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 348

Filed: February 6, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Bannock County. Hon. Stephen S. Dunn, District Judge. 

Orders revoking probation and imposing sentence and judgment of conviction and 

sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 45006, Herlinda Resendiz pleaded guilty to grand theft by possession of 

stolen property, Idaho Code § 18-2403 and § 18-2407(1), and forgery, I.C. § 18-3601. The 

district court sentenced Resendiz to a unified five-year sentence, with two years determinate, for 

each count to run concurrently. In Docket No. 45007, Resendiz pleaded guilty to burglary, I.C. 

§ 18-1401-03, and the district court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with two years 

determinate, to run concurrently with 45006. The district court suspended the sentences and 

placed Resendiz on a term of probation. Resendiz admitted to violating the terms of her 

probation and in Docket No. 45008, Resendiz pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled 

substance, methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In Docket No. 45008, the district court 
2

imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with three years determinate, to run concurrently with 

45006 and 45007. The district court revoked probation in 45006 and 45007 and reinstated the 

sentence. The district court suspended all sentences and retained jurisdiction. Following a 

period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentences and placed Resendiz on 

probation. Subsequently, in Docket No 45009, Resendiz pleaded guilty to delivery of a 

controlled substance, methamphetamine, I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1)(A), and the district court imposed 

a unified seven-year sentence, with three years determinate, to run concurrently to all other 

cases. Further, Resendiz admitted to violating the terms of her probation and the court ordered 

execution of all original sentences.

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 I.C.R. 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. I.C. § 19-2601. 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. In reviewing the propriety of a probation revocation, the focus of 

the inquiry is the conduct underlying the trial court’s decision to revoke probation. State v. 

Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). Thus, this Court will consider 

the elements of the record before the trial court relevant to the revocation of probation issues 

which are properly made part of the record on appeal. Id.

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-
3

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 probation. Id. Thus, this Court will 

consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record 

on appeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced 

the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. Morgan, 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at 

838. 

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation, in ordering execution of 

Resendiz’s previously suspended sentences, or in imposing sentence. Therefore, the orders

revoking probation and directing execution of Resendiz’s previously suspended sentences are

affirmed and the judgment of conviction and sentence is affirmed.