State v. Anderson, 031919 IDCCA, 46153
|Opinion Judge:||PER CURIAM.|
|Party Name:||STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. STERLING WILLIAM ANDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.|
|Judge Panel:||Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge|
|Case Date:||March 19, 2019|
|Court:||Court of Appeals of Idaho|
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.
Order revoking probation and executing modified sentence, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
Sterling William Anderson pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004 and 18-8005. The district court sentenced Anderson to a unified term of eight years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Anderson on probation. Thereafter, Anderson admitted to violating his probation. The district court revoked probation, again retained jurisdiction, and subsequently placed Anderson on probation. Once again, Anderson admitted to violating the terms of the probation. The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the sentence but reduced it to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. 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...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP