1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40050

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TAYLOR GIL CAVES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 501

Filed: May 22, 2013

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified seven-year

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

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Taylor Gil Caves pled guilty to burglary, I.C. § 18-1401, and the district court granted a 

withheld judgment and placed Caves on probation. This probation was subsequently revoked 

and the district court revoked the withheld judgment, sentenced Caves to a unified term of seven 

years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, but suspended sentence and placed 

Caves on probation. Caves again violated the terms of his probation. The district court retained 

jurisdiction and thereafter suspended the sentence and again placed Caves on probation. 

Subsequently, Caves admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court 

consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Caves appeals, 
2

contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the district 

court should have sua sponte reduced the sentence upon the revocation of probation.

A. Denial of Motion to Augment Record

Caves asks this Court to hold that the Idaho Supreme Court deprived him of due process 

when it denied his motion to augment the record. We do not, however, have the authority to 

review and, in effect, reverse an Idaho Supreme Court decision on a motion made prior to 

assignment of the case to this Court on the ground that the Supreme Court decision was contrary 

to the state or federal constitutions or other law. See State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 620, 288 

P.3d 835, 837 (Ct. App. 2012). Such an undertaking would be tantamount to the Court of 

Appeals entertaining an appeal from an Idaho Supreme Court decision and is plainly beyond the 

purview of this Court. Id. If a motion is renewed by the movant and new information or a new 

or expanded basis for the motion is presented to this Court that was not presented to the Supreme 

Court, we deem it within the authority of this Court to evaluate and rule on the renewed motion 

in the exercise of our responsibility to address all aspects of an appeal from the time of 

assignment to this Court. Id. Such may occur if the appellant’s or respondent’s briefs have 

refined, clarified, or expanded issues on appeal in such a way as to demonstrate the need for 

additional records or transcripts, or where new evidence is presented to support a renewed 

motion. Id.

Caves has not filed with this Court a renewed motion to augment the record or presented 

to this Court in his briefing any significant new facts or a new justification for augmentation 

beyond that already advanced in his motion to the Supreme Court. Caves had an opportunity to 

present his constitutional arguments to the Supreme Court and that Court denied his motion. In 

essence, Caves asks us to determine that the Idaho Supreme Court violated constitutional law by 

denying his motion. As this is beyond the scope of our authority, we will not address the issue 

further. 

B. Probation Revocation and Sentence Review

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 
3

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.

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). 

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. 

We conclude we have no authority to address the Idaho Supreme Court’s denial of 

Caves’s motion to augment the record. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse 

its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering execution of Caves’s original sentence 

without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of 

Caves’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.