1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41876

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY M. MENDEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 685

Filed: August 20, 2014

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Bonner County. Hon. Barbara A. Buchanan, District Judge. 

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

with two-years determinate term for domestic battery with traumatic injury, 

affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Anthony M. Mendez pled guilty to domestic battery with traumatic injury. Idaho Code 

§§ 18-903, 18-918(2), 18-918(4). The district court imposed a unified four-year sentence with a 

two-years determinate term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence 

and placed Mendez on supervised probation for a period of three years. Subsequently, Mendez

admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court continued Mendez on 

supervised probation.

Within two months, Mendez again admitted to violating the terms of his probation and 

the district court consequently revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and 
2

retained jurisdiction a second time. Following his second period of retained jurisdiction, the 

district court suspended his sentence and reinstated his supervised probation. Mendez admitted 

to again violating the terms of his probation and the district court revoked his probation and 

ordered the underlying sentence executed. Mendez appeals, contending that the district court 

abused its discretion in revoking probation.

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. 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.

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 and in ordering execution of 

Mendez’s original sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of 

Mendez’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.