1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 46283/46284/46285

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ERIC RODRIGUEZ-GONZALEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: May 29, 2019

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. Benjamin J. Cluff, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation, affirmed; judgments of conviction and concurrent 

unified sentences of five years with two years determinate for possession of 

oxycodone; seven years with three years determinate for grand theft by acquiring 

lost property; five years with three years determinate for criminal possession of a 

financial transaction card; seven years with three years determinate for possession 

of heroin; and five years with three years determinate for criminal possession of a 

financial transaction card, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

These cases are consolidated on appeal. In Docket No. 46283, Eric Rodriguez-Gonzalez

pled guilty to possession of oxycodone (Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1)). The district court 

imposed a unified five-year sentence with two years determinate, but after a period of retained 

jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Rodriguez-Gonzalez on probation. 
2

Subsequently, a report of probation violation was filed, and Rodriguez-Gonzalez admitted the 

violations. The district court placed him back on probation. Rodriguez-Gonzalez again admitted 

to violating the terms of the probation by incurring new charges of grand theft by acquiring lost 

property (I.C. § 18-2403(2)(c)) and criminal possession of a financial transaction card (I.C. § 18-

3125) in Docket No. 46284 and possession of heroin (I.C. § 37-3732(c)(1)) and criminal 

possession of a financial transaction card (I.C. § 18-3125) in Docket No. 46825. The district 

court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence in Docket 

No. 46283. In Docket No. 46284, the district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of 

seven years with three years determinate for grand theft and five years with three years 

determinate for criminal possession of a financial transaction card. In Docket No. 46285, the 

district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of seven years with three years determinate 

for possession of heroin and five years with three years determinate for criminal possession of a 

financial transaction card. The district court ordered all of the sentences to be served 

concurrently. Rodriguez-Gonzalez appeals, contending that the district court abused its 

discretion in revoking probation in Docket No. 46283 and that the sentences in Docket 

Nos. 46284 and 46285 are excessive.

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. 
3

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.

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

and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a 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). 

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 or by imposing excessive 

sentences. Therefore, the order revoking probation in Docket No. 46283 and RodriguezGonzalez’s judgments of conviction and sentences in Docket Nos. 46284 and 46285 are 

affirmed.