1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38393

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FARGO AUGUSTUS KESEY,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 438

Filed: April 10, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Orders revoking probation and relinquishing jurisdiction requiring execution of 

unified ten-year sentence with one and one-half year determinate term for felony 

driving under the influence of alcohol, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sarah E. Tompkins, 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 MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Fargo Augustus Kesey pled guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol. Idaho 

Code § 18-8004, 18-8005(5). The district court entered an order withholding judgment and 

placing Kesey on supervised probation for a period of five years. Subsequently, Kesey 

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

probation and the withheld judgment and imposed a unified sentence of ten years with two years 

determinate, but retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction the district 

court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered executed a reduced unified sentence of ten years with 
2

one and one-half years determinate. Kesey appeals, asserting that the district court abused its 

discretion by revoking probation and relinquishing jurisdiction.

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. 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.

We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to 

relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district 

court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 

Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-

97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the 

information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Kesey has 

failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order 

relinquishing jurisdiction.

Therefore, the orders revoking probation and relinquishing jurisdiction and directing 

execution of Kesey’s reduced sentence are affirmed.