From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Schmidt

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
May 4, 2012
Docket No. 39116 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 4, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 39116

05-04-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MOLLY BETH SCHMIDT, Defendant-Appellant.

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified seven-year sentence with two-year determinate term for grand theft, affirmed . Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 463


Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk


THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified seven-year sentence with two-year determinate term for grand theft, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Molly Beth Schmidt pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court withheld judgment and placed Schmidt on supervised probation for a period of five years. Subsequently, Schmidt admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and the withheld judgment and imposed a unified seven-year sentence with a two-year determinate term, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Schmidt's sentence and again placed her on supervised probation for seven years. Schmidt again admitted to violating the terms of her probation. The district court revoked Schmidt's probation and ordered her underlying sentence executed. Schmidt appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and in failing to sua sponte reduce her sentence.

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 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.

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 Schmidt's original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Schmidt's previously suspended sentence is affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Schmidt

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
May 4, 2012
Docket No. 39116 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 4, 2012)
Case details for

State v. Schmidt

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MOLLY BETH SCHMIDT…

Court:COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: May 4, 2012

Citations

Docket No. 39116 (Idaho Ct. App. May. 4, 2012)