The state bears the burden of providing satisfactory proof of a violation though proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 314, 766 P.2d 781, 784 (1988). Once a probation violation has been proven, the decision of whether to revoke probation is within the sound discretion of the court.
Throughout probation revocation proceedings, the probationer is entitled to due process. State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 314, 766 P.2d 781, 784 (1988). The probationer is entitled to be present at the hearing and may be entitled to counsel.
I.A.R. 13(c)(10); Wilson, 136 Idaho at 772-73, 40 P.3d at 130-31. State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 313-15, 766 P.2d 781, 783-85 (1988), held that where a defendant does not appeal his judgment of conviction and sentence, the district court no longer has power over those dispositions because they have become final. There, the district court had entered judgments and sentences on Kelsey's guilty pleas, but had suspended the sentences and granted probation with a condition that he participate in a juvenile treatment program.
Did he make an informed, voluntary admission of the acts which were used to revoke his probation? In State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 766 P.2d 781 (1988), our Supreme Court reviewed the requirements for revocation of probation: Our statutes and cases require that a probationer be given a due process hearing before his probation can be revoked.
In due process cases involving the deprivation of a liberty interest, this Court has applied the United States Supreme Court's standard for interpreting the due process clause of the United States Constitution, to art. I, ยง 13 of the Idaho Constitution. State v. Chapman, 111 Idaho 149, 150-51, 721 P.2d 1248, 1249-50 (1986); see State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 314, 766 P.2d 781, 784 (1988); State v. White, 107 Idaho 941, 942, 694 P.2d 890, 891 (1985); State v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 385-87, 582 P.2d 728, 731-33 (1978). In Morrissey, the United States Supreme Court set forth the minimum due process requirements that must be provided to an individual in a parole revocation proceeding under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The State bears the burden of providing satisfactory proof of a violation, though proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 314, 766 P.2d 781, 784 (1988); Prelwitz, 132 Idaho at 194, 968 P.2d at 1103. A finding of a probation violation must be on verified facts, and the trial court's exercise of discretion must be informed by an accurate knowledge of the probationer's behavior.
Nonetheless, throughout probation revocation proceedings, the probationer is entitled to due process. State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 314, 766 P.2d 781, 784 (1988); Done, 139 Idaho at 637, 84 P.3d at 573. The same minimum due process rights apply to proceedings to revoke parole and probation. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 782 (1973); Loomis v. Killeen, 135 Idaho 607, 610-11, 21 P.3d 929, 932-33 (Ct.App. 2001).
Throughout probation revocation proceedings, the probationer is entitled to due process. State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 314, 76 P.2d 781, 784 (1988). The probationer is entitled to be present at the hearing and may be entitled to counsel.
The State bears the burden of providing satisfactory proof of a probation violation though proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not required. State v. Kelsey, 115 Idaho 311, 314, 766 P.2d 781, 784 (1988). Our inquiry on review is whether substantial and competent evidence was presented at the hearing which would support a finding of a violation.
A probationer must be given a due process hearing before probation can be revoked upon satisfactory proof of a violation of a probation condition or "any other cause satisfactory to the court." State v. Kelsey 115 Idaho 311, 314, 766 P.2d 781, 784 (1988), citing I.C. ยงยง 19-2602, 20-222. Our Supreme Court explained the due process rights to which a probationer is entitled: