State v. Clarke

• Docket Number: 50750
• Decision Date: 16 January 2024
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PETER O'DONALD CLARKE, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

1

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. PETER O'DONALD CLARKE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 50750

Court of Appeals of Idaho

January 16, 2024

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before Gratton, Chief Judge; Huskey, Judge; and Lorello, Judge

PER CURIAM.

Peter O'Donald Clarke entered Alford ^[1] pleas to an amended charge of aggravated assault (I.C. §§ 18-901 and 18-905) and two amended counts of misdemeanor sexual battery (I.C. § 18924). The district court sentenced Clarke to a determinate term of five years, for aggravated assault, but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation. The district court also sentenced Clarke to a determinate term of one year for one count of misdemeanor sexual battery, and a suspended term of one year for the other misdemeanor count of sexual battery. The district court ordered that Clark's sentences be served consecutively. Clarke appealed, and this Court affirmed his judgments of conviction and sentences. See State v. Clarke, Docket No. 49566 (Ct. App. Aug 23, 2022). Subsequently, Clarke was found to have violated the terms of his probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentences. Clarke appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and that the district court should have reinstated him on probation or retained jurisdiction.

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. 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.

We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005)....