State v. Chanel Lynn Bistodeau

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 42934 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 674 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: October 27, 2015 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) CHANEL LYNN BISTODEAU, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. David C. Nye, District Judge. Order revoking probation, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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 HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Chanel Lynn Bistodeau pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37- 2732(a)(1)(A). In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court withheld judgment and placed Bistodeau on probation for three years. Bistodeau absconded and admitted to violating the terms of her probation. The district court revoked the withheld judgment, imposed a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, and reinstated Bistodeau on probation. Following several more probation violations and a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court ultimately revoked probation and ordered execution of the Bistodeau’s sentence. Bistodeau appeals, contending that 1 the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and by failing to discharge Bistodeau from 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 either in revoking probation or in ordering execution of Bistodeau’s sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Bistodeau’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed. 2