Court Opinion

ID: 4258928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-03-28 15:12:05.048526+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:28:27.814983
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 45369

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 403
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: March 28, 2018
                                                )
v.                                              )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
                                                )
JASON VAUGHN PATTERSON,                         )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
       Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Lara E. Anderson, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                 and LORELLO, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Jason Vaughn Patterson pled guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-
2407(1)(b)(6); and aggravated assault, I.C. §§ 18-901, 18-905. In exchange for his guilty plea,
additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of four years,
with a minimum period of confinement of one year, for grand theft and a consecutive unified
sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for aggravated
assault, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentences and placed Patterson
on probation. Subsequently, Patterson admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the

                                                1
district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentences.
Patterson 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 Patterson’s sentences without modification.          Therefore, the order revoking
probation and directing execution of Patterson’s previously suspended sentences are affirmed.

                                                 2