1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 46167

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

ISOM LEE HUDSON,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: March 27, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, 

Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and execution of previously suspended 

sentence, 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 HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and BRAILSFORD, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Isom Lee Hudson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. § 18-8004. The 

district court sentenced Hudson to a unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of 

confinement of four years, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and 

placed Hudson on probation. Hudson filed an I.C.R. 35 motion seeking a reduction of his 

sentence, which the district court denied. Hudson appealed that denial, and this Court affirmed 

in an unpublished opinion. See State v. Hudson, Docket No. 45137 (Ct. App. Feb. 1, 2018). 
2

Subsequently, Hudson admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district 

court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Hudson

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

sentence is excessive and should have been sua sponte reduced by the district court. 

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. 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.

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 

on appeal and are relevant to the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced 
3

the sentence sua sponte upon revocation of probation. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 

P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012). 

Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that 

the district court abused its discretion in either revoking probation or in ordering execution of 

Hudson’s sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing 

execution of Hudson’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.