Court Opinion

ID: 881436
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-06-05 00:44:04.608221+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:54.765339
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                       Docket No. 39314

STATE OF IDAHO,                                 )     2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 534
                                                )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )     Filed: June 25, 2012
                                                )
v.                                              )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                )
JUSTIN L. WAINSHILBAUM,                         )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                     )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
       County. Hon. Michael R. McLaughlin, District Judge.

       Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified fifteen-year sentence
       with two-year determinate term for sexual abuse of a child, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
       Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
       Justin L. Wainshilbaum was convicted of sexual abuse of a child, Idaho Code § 18-1506.
The district court imposed a unified fifteen-year sentence with a three-year determinate term,
suspended the sentence, and placed Wainshilbaum on probation for fifteen years with the
condition that he remain incarcerated in jail for 365 days with credit for time served.
Subsequently, Wainshilbaum admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district
court consequently revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and retained
jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction period, Wainshilbaum was returned to
probation.   After admitting to several probation violations, the district court revoked

                                               1
Wainshilbaum’s probation and executed his original sentence, reducing the determinate term to
two years. Wainshilbaum appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in
revoking probation and that the sentence is excessive.
       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 is 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 a 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.

                                                2
       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 Wainshilbaum’s reduced sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and
directing execution of Wainshilbaum’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.

                                              3