Court Opinion

ID: 4171013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-05-23 17:10:25.486652+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:39:06.444932
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 44613

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )   2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 468
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: May 23, 2017
                                                )
v.                                              )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
ADRIENNE MOORE, fka ARNAIZ,                     )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, Blaine
       County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford,
       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 MELANSON, Judge
                  ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Adrienne Moore pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code § 18-2407(1). The district court
sentenced Moore to a unified term of ten years with four years determinate, suspended the
sentence, and placed Moore on probation. Subsequently, Moore was found to have violated the
terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked the probation and ordered
execution of the original sentence. Moore appeals, contending that the district court abused its
discretion by revoking the 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

                                                1
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 by revoking the probation. Therefore, the order
revoking probation and directing execution of Moore’s previously suspended sentence is
affirmed.

                                                2