State v. Hanington, No. 35596.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Idaho
Writing for the CourtGratton
Citation218 P.3d 5
Docket NumberNo. 35608.,No. 35596.
Decision Date11 August 2009
PartiesSTATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William Blaine HANINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
218 P.3d 5
STATE of Idaho, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
William Blaine HANINGTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 35596.
No. 35608.
Court of Appeals of Idaho.
August 11, 2009.
Review Denied October 5, 2009.

[218 P.3d 6]

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

GRATTON, Judge.


William Blaine Hanington pled guilty to enticing children over the internet, a felony, Idaho Code § 18-1509A. The district court withheld judgment and placed Hanington on probation for eight years. Hanington admitted to violating his probation and the district court revoked his probation and imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years with seven years determinate. However, the district court retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court again placed Hanington on probation. Hanington again admitted to violating his probation and the district court revoked his probation but suspended execution of the sentence and retained jurisdiction for a second time. Following the second period of retained jurisdiction, the district court once again placed Hanington on probation. Following yet another violation of probation, the district court revoked probation and ordered the underlying sentence into execution but reduced the determinate term to six years.

218 P.3d 7

In a separate case, Hanington pled guilty to the offense of failure to register as a sex offender, a felony, I.C. § 18-8309. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years with one year determinate, to be served consecutive to the sentence in the enticement case, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended execution of the sentence and placed Hanington on probation for a period of five years. Hanington admitted to violating his probation and the district court revoked his probation and ordered the underlying sentence into execution without modification.

On appeal, Hanington does not dispute the district court's findings that he violated probation or that his probation should be revoked. Instead, Hanington asserts that the district court abused its discretion in failing to further reduce his sentence in the enticement case and failing to reduce his sentence in the failure to register case.

After a probation violation has been established, the court may order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 326, 834 P.2d 326, 328 (Ct.App.1992); State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct.App.1989). A decision to refuse to reduce the sentence earlier pronounced will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Marks, 116 Idaho at 978, 783 P.2d at 317.

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).

In this matter, a dispute has arisen regarding the scope of our review when a sentence is ordered into execution after probation is revoked. Based upon the following language in our decision in State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 1055-1056, 772 P.2d 260, 262-263...

To continue reading

Request your trial
327 practice notes
  • State Of Idaho v. Allen, Docket No. 37140
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • January 11, 2011
    ...or, in the alternative, the court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 28, 218 P.3d 5, 7 (Ct. App. 2009);Page 12 State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P......
  • State v. Morgan, No. 39057.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • November 29, 2012
    ...upon anything that occurred during those prior hearings. Morgan asserts that this Court's decision in State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct.App.2009), requires a review of the entire record of proceedings in the trial court up to and including the revocation of probation. Morgan ......
  • State v. Morgan, 39057.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • July 10, 2012
    ...upon anything that occurred during those prior hearings.Morgan asserts that this Court's decision in State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct.App.2009), requires a review of the entire record of proceedings in the trial court up to and including the revocation of probation. Morgan r......
  • State Of Idaho v. Gunn, No. 36737
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • July 21, 2010
    ...sentence, is included in the record as is the PSI report. Gunn asserts that this Court's decision in State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 28, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct. App. 2009), requires a review of the entire record of proceedings in the trial court up to and including the revocation of probation. Gunn r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
327 cases
  • State Of Idaho v. Allen, Docket No. 37140
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • January 11, 2011
    ...or, in the alternative, the court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 28, 218 P.3d 5, 7 (Ct. App. 2009);Page 12 State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P......
  • State v. Morgan, No. 39057.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • November 29, 2012
    ...upon anything that occurred during those prior hearings. Morgan asserts that this Court's decision in State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct.App.2009), requires a review of the entire record of proceedings in the trial court up to and including the revocation of probation. Morgan ......
  • State v. Morgan, 39057.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • July 10, 2012
    ...upon anything that occurred during those prior hearings.Morgan asserts that this Court's decision in State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct.App.2009), requires a review of the entire record of proceedings in the trial court up to and including the revocation of probation. Morgan r......
  • State Of Idaho v. Gunn, No. 36737
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Idaho
    • July 21, 2010
    ...sentence, is included in the record as is the PSI report. Gunn asserts that this Court's decision in State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 28, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct. App. 2009), requires a review of the entire record of proceedings in the trial court up to and including the revocation of probation. Gunn r......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT