1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44218

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PATRICK ADAM THOMETZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 802

Filed: December 2, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge. 

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

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

affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 

Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Patrick Adam Thometz pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. Idaho Code 

§§ 18-8004, 18-8005(6). The district court sentenced Thometz to a unified term of ten years 

with three years determinate, ordered that the sentence in this case run consecutively to 

Thometz’s sentence in an unrelated case, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of 

retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Thometz on supervised 

probation for a period of five years. Subsequently, Thometz admitted to violating the terms of 

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

original sentence, and retained jurisdiction a second time. Following the second period of 

retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Thometz’s sentence and placed him on 

supervised probation for three years. A few months later Thometz admitted to again violating 

the terms of the probation, and the district court revoked Thometz’s probation and ordered 

executed a reduced unified sentence of ten years with two years determinate. In addition, the 

district court ordered that the sentence in this case run concurrently with the sentence in the 

unrelated matter. Thometz appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by 

revoking his 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. 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.

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. Therefore, the order 

revoking probation and directing execution of Thometz’s reduced sentence is affirmed.