1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 37842

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GRANT HAYDEN FISCHER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 673

Filed: October 16, 2012

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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, 

Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified five-year

sentence with one-year determinate term for burglary, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Grant Hayden Fischer pled guilty to burglary, and the district court imposed a unified 

five-year sentence with a one-year determinate term. The district court suspended the sentence 

and placed Fischer on probation for three years. Fischer violated probation by his failure to 

comply with the conditions of mental health court. The district court again granted probation but 

extended the term of probation to five years. Following several probation violations, the district 

court revoked probation but retained jurisdiction. Upon review, the district court again granted 

probation, which Fischer again violated. The district court again revoked probation but retained 

jurisdiction for a second time. Upon review, Fischer was again placed on probation. On appeal, 
2

Fischer argues only that his sentence is excessive and that the district court should have sua 

sponte reduced it upon revocation of probation.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the 

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the 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, 871-73 (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 these standards, 

and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its 

discretion.

Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Fischer’s previously 

suspended sentence is affirmed.