1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39652/39653

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM HOWARD LOCKE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 737

Filed: November 27, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Ronald J. Wilper, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified ten-year sentence 

with two-year determinate term for felony driving under the influence, affirmed; 

order revoking probation and requiring execution of concurrent ten-year sentence 

with four-year determinate term for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, 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; LANSING, Judge;

and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM

This is a consolidated appeal. In Docket No. 39652, William Howard Locke

pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs (one 

felony conviction within fifteen years). Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(9). The district court 

imposed a unified ten-year sentence with a two year determinate term, suspended the sentence 

and placed Locke on supervised probation for ten years.

Approximately one year later, Locke again drove while intoxicated and the State charged 

him with felony DUI (docket number 39653). The State filed a motion for probation violation in 

docket number 39652. Locke pled guilty to felony DUI in docket number 39653 and admitted to 
2

violating the conditions of his probation in docket number 39652. The district court revoked his 

probation and ordered execution of the underlying sentence in case number 39652; imposed a 

concurrent unified sentence of ten years with four years determinate in docket number 39653, 

and retained jurisdiction in both cases. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district 

court suspended Locke’s sentences and placed him on supervised probation in both cases.

Subsequently, Locke admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district 

court consequently revoked his probation and ordered execution of the original sentences. Locke

appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation or, 

alternatively, by failing to reduce his 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 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). 
3

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 Locke’s original sentences without modification. Therefore, the orders revoking 

probation and directing execution of Locke’s previously suspended sentences are affirmed.