Court Opinion

ID: 881452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 00:44:09.620596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:54.865758
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 39174

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 516
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: June 18, 2012
                                                 )
v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
DANIEL SCOTT WILSON,                             )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation and reinstating previously suspended unified five-year
       sentence with two-year determinate term for presenting an illegally obtained
       lottery ticket, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                      Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;
                                 and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM
       Daniel Scott Wilson pled guilty to presenting an illegally obtained lottery ticket, Idaho
Code § 67-7448(2), and the district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a two-year
determinate term and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the
district court suspended Wilson’s sentence and placed him on supervised probation for five
years. Subsequently, Wilson admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district
court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. On appeal,
Wilson asserts that the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation and executing
the previously imposed sentence, without reduction.

                                                1
       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 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.
       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 the 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 the probation.        Id.   Applying these
standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court
abused its discretion by revoking probation or by failing to sua sponte reduce Wilson’s sentence.
       Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Wilson’s previously
suspended sentence is affirmed.

                                                2