State v. Kelsey

13 Citing cases

  1. State v. Rose

    144 Idaho 762 (Idaho 2007)   Cited 26 times
    Holding the same in regard to probation revocation proceedings

    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.

  2. State v. Arvizu

    Docket No. 43182 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 26, 2016)

    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.

  3. State v. Jakoski

    Docket No. 27368 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2002)   Cited 2 times

    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.

  4. State v. Buzo

    824 P.2d 899 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 7 times
    In State v. Buzo, 121 Idaho 324, 824 P.2d 899 (Ct.App. 1991), this Court addressed the sufficiency of a waiver of counsel at a probation violation hearing.

    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.

  5. Smith v. Idaho Dept. of Correction

    128 Idaho 768 (Idaho 1996)   Cited 9 times
    In Smith v. Idaho Dept. of Correction, 128 Idaho 768, 918 P.2d 1213 (1996), a habeas petitioner claimed he was denied due process because he could not compel witnesses to appear at his parole revocation hearing.

    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.

  6. State v. Sanchez

    Docket No. 34032 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 8, 2008)

    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.

  7. State v. Rose

    Docket No. 31966 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 30, 2006)   Cited 1 times

    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).

  8. State v. Done

    139 Idaho 635 (Idaho Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 7 times

    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.

  9. State v. Prelwitz

    132 Idaho 191 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 6 times
    In Prelwitz, this Court directed the district court to reinstate a defendant's probation, but only because this Court also found that the defendant had not violated his probation.

    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.

  10. State v. Greenawald

    903 P.2d 144 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995)   Cited 2 times

    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: