1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45709

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CORY GENE DAVIS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: August 16, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and executing underlying sentence, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Chief, 

Appellate Unit, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Cory Gene Davis pled guilty to felony driving while under the influence of alcohol. 

Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, 18-8005(6). The district court sentenced Davis to a unified term of 

seven years with two years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of 

retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Davis on probation for 

a period of six years. Subsequently, Davis admitted to violating several terms of the probation, 

and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original 

sentence. Davis appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking 

probation and executing the original sentence.
2

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.

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. 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 either in revoking probation or in ordering 

execution of Davis’s sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and 

directing execution of Davis’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.