1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44573

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

FRANCISCO JAVIER VAZQUEZGUZMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 452

Filed: May 2, 2017

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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 HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Francisco Javier Vazquez-Guzman pled guilty to operating a vehicle without owner’s 

consent and to driving without privileges. Idaho Code §§ 49-227, 18-8001(5). The district court 

sentenced Vazquez-Guzman to a unified term of five years with two years determinate, 

suspended the sentence, and placed Vazquez-Guzman on supervised probation for three years. 

Subsequently, Vazquez-Guzman admitted to violating the terms of the probation. The State filed 

a second motion to revoke probation and the district court continued the disposition hearing for 

ninety days to allow Vazquez-Guzman time to get into compliance with this probation. But prior 

to the disposition hearing, the State filed a third motion to revoke probation. Consequently the 
2

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

jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the 

balance of Vazquez-Guzman’s sentence and reinstated probation for a period of three years. The 

State later filed a fourth and subsequently a fifth motion to revoke probation. Vazquez-Guzman 

admitted to violating the majority of the terms of the probation. The district court revoked

Vazquez-Guzman’s probation and ordered his sentence executed. Vazquez-Guzman appeals, 

contending that the district court abused its discretion by revoking the 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 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 
3

on appeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced 

the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. Morgan, 153 Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d 

at 838. 

Applying the foregoing standard, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation. Therefore, the order 

revoking probation and directing execution of Vazquez-Guzman’s previously suspended 

sentence is affirmed.