Opinion
51018
08-14-2024
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. JASON LEE MAYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Alan C. Stephens, Senior District Judge.
Order revoking probation and execution of unified seven-year sentence with three-years determinate term for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge
PER CURIAM
Jason Lee Mayers pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code § 18-8004. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he was a persistent violator. The district court imposed a unified term of seven years with three years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following the term of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Mayers' sentence and placed him on probation for five years. Subsequently, Mayers admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Mayers filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which the district court denied. Mayers appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation.
The denial of the Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not an issue in this appeal.
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 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 either in revoking probation or in ordering execution of Mayers' underlying sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Mayers' previously suspended sentence is affirmed.