State of Idaho v. Fransisco E. Gutierrez

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52952

STATE OF IDAHO, )

) Filed: September 9, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, )

) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. )

) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED FRANSISCO E. GUTIERREZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. )

)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, Peter Barton, District Judges.

Order reinstating probation, affirmed; order denying motion for early termination of probation, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Fransisco E. Gutierrez pled guilty to driving under the influence, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(6). The district court sentenced Gutierrez to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. However, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Gutierrez on probation for seven years, which was ordered to end on January 11, 2025, or “unless the Court orders otherwise.” Subsequently, Gutierrez admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence but retained jurisdiction. After the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Gutierrez on probation; however, the district court

2

extended the probationary period until December 31, 2027. Thereafter, Gutierrez filed a motion for early termination of probation, which the district court denied. Gutierrez appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion by imposing an extended length of probation and by denying his request for early termination of probation.

We review a trial court’s decision on a motion to modify the terms and conditions of probation for an abuse of discretion. See State v. Gibbs, 162 Idaho 782, 789, 405 P.3d 567, 574 (2017) (holding that a trial court’s decision to extend a probation term is reviewed for an abuse of discretion). When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that an extended length of probation was appropriate and that the request for early termination was not appropriate.

Therefore, the order reinstating probation and the order denying motion for early termination of probation are affirmed.