1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 39985 & 39987

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANDREW WILLIAM ACKERLAND,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 474

Filed: May 1, 2013

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Orders revoking probation and requiring execution of unified eight-year sentence,

with three-year determinate term, for burglary and concurrent unified ten-year 

sentence, with four-year determinate term, for felony driving under the 

influence, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In Docket No. 39985, Andrew William Ackerland pled guilty to burglary. I.C. § 18-

1401. The district court imposed a unified eight-year sentence with a three-year determinate 

term, suspended the sentence and placed Ackerland on probation. Ackerland

admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court revoked probation, retained 

jurisdiction, and again placed Ackerland on probation. 

While on probation for burglary, in Docket No. 39987, Ackerland pled guilty to felony 

driving under the influence (DUI). I.C. § 18-8004. The district court sentenced Ackerland to a 

unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, to run concurrent 
2

with his burglary sentence. As a result of this guilty plea, the district court revoked probation in 

the burglary case, suspended both of Ackerland’s sentences, but retained jurisdiction in both 

cases. Following successful completion of his rider, the district court again placed Ackerland on 

probation with the condition that he complete the Ada County Drug Court Program. Ackerland 

thereafter admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the district court revoked 

probation and ordered execution of Ackerland’s underlying sentences. Ackerland appeals, 

contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the district 

court should have sua sponte reduced 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. 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. 

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the records in these cases, we 

cannot say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering 

execution of Ackerland’s original sentences without modification. Therefore, the orders

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

affirmed.