1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44217

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TRAVIS SHANE MAI,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 315

Filed: January 13, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, Cassia

County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and execution of previously suspended sentence, 

affirmed. 

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 

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; MELANSON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Travis Shane Mai pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004 and 

18-8005(6). The district court withheld judgment and placed Mai on probation. Thereafter, Mai 

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

withheld judgment and probation. The district court entered a judgment of conviction and

sentenced Mai to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two 

years. The district court suspended the sentence and again placed Mai on probation. 

Subsequently, Mai admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court revoked 
2

probation and ordered execution of Mai’s sentence. However, the district court retained 

jurisdiction and sent Mai to participate in the rider program. Mai filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for 

reduction of his sentence, which the district court denied. Mai appeals, contending that the 

district court abused its discretion in revoking 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.

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 Mai’s sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of 

Mai’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.