Court Opinion

ID: 4378448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-03-19 18:03:13.04489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:22:20.659281
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                      Docket No. 46153

STATE OF IDAHO,                                )
                                               )   Filed: March 19, 2019
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                   )
                                               )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                             )
                                               )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
STERLING WILLIAM ANDERSON,                     )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                               )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                    )
                                               )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation and executing modified sentence, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, 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
       Sterling William Anderson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-
8004 and 18-8005. The district court sentenced Anderson to a unified term of eight years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years, but after a period of retained jurisdiction,
suspended the sentence and placed Anderson on probation. Thereafter, Anderson admitted to
violating his probation. The district court revoked probation, again retained jurisdiction, and
subsequently placed Anderson on probation. Once again, Anderson admitted to violating the
terms of the probation. The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the
sentence but reduced it to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement

                                               1
of two years. Anderson 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. 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.
       Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Therefore, the order revoking
probation and directing execution of Anderson’s reduced sentence is affirmed.

                                                2