State v. Hyrum William Anderson

CourtIdaho Court of Appeals
DecidedFebruary 2, 2016
StatusUnpublished

This text of State v. Hyrum William Anderson (State v. Hyrum William Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Idaho Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Hyrum William Anderson, (Idaho Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43447

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 365 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: February 2, 2016 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) HYRUM WILLIAM ANDERSON, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

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

Order revoking probation, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and GRATTON, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Hyrum William Anderson pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property. I.C. §§ 18-12403(4), 18-2407(1). The district court sentenced Anderson to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, but retained jurisdiction. Anderson filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of his sentence, with the district court granted by suspending Anderson’s sentence and placing him on probation. Anderson subsequently violated the terms of his probation. The district court revoked probation, ordered execution of Anderson’s sentence, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court again suspended Anderson’s sentence and placed

1 him on probation. Anderson admitted to violating the terms of his probation again. The district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentence and again retained jurisdiction. Anderson appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. 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. 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 in revoking probation and in ordering execution of Anderson’s sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Anderson’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Urrabazo
244 P.3d 1244 (Idaho Supreme Court, 2010)
State v. Andrew Dallas Morgan
288 P.3d 835 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 2012)
State v. Beckett
834 P.2d 326 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1992)
State v. Upton
899 P.2d 984 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1995)
State v. Hass
758 P.2d 713 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1988)
State v. Adams
772 P.2d 260 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1989)
State v. Marks
783 P.2d 315 (Idaho Court of Appeals, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
State v. Hyrum William Anderson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hyrum-william-anderson-idahoctapp-2016.