Court Opinion

ID: 3172341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-01-26 22:04:22.842984+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:57:44.272996
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 43146

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 340
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )   Filed: January 26, 2016
                                                 )
v.                                               )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
MELVIN P. FOSTER,                                )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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,
       Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori Anne Fleming, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                    Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
                                  and HUSKEY, Judge
                   ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Melvin P. Foster pleaded guilty to grand theft, felony, Idaho Code § 18-2407(1)(b)1. The
district court imposed a unified six-year sentence, with two years determinate, suspended the
sentence, and placed Foster on probation. Subsequently, Foster admitted to violating the terms
of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation, suspended the sentence,
and retained jurisdiction. After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court placed Foster
on probation. Foster again admitted to violating the terms of his probation and the district court
ordered execution of the original sentence. Foster filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion.1
Foster appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation.

1
       Foster does not appeal from his Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion.
                                                 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. 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 in revoking probation. Therefore, the order
revoking probation and directing execution of Foster’s previously suspended sentence is
affirmed.

                                                2