Opinion
49326
05-31-2022
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MICHAEL CHANTZ MAYBIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.
Order revoking probation and directing execution of a unified six-year sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
PER CURIAM
Michael Chantz Maybin pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of incarceration of three years, suspended the sentence, and placed Maybin on probation. Twice Maybin admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and each time, the district court continued him on probation. Maybin admitted to violating the terms of the probation a third time and while waiting for disposition, Maybin admitted again to violating the terms of the probation. The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of a reduced sentence of six years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years. Maybin appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion because the court should have placed him back on supervised probation, or alternatively, retained jurisdiction.
It is within the trial court's discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and conditions of the probation has 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(4). 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 and ordering execution of a reduced sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of a unified six-year sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, is affirmed.