State of Idaho v. Peter O'Donald Clarke

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50750

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 16, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
PETER O’DONALD CLARKE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

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 Alford1 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. § 18-
924). 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

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
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

2
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). Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. Id. There can be no abuse of
discretion if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the defendant is not
a suitable candidate for probation. Id.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion in either revoking probation or in ordering execution of
Clarke’s sentences without reinstating probation or retaining jurisdiction. Therefore, the order
revoking probation and directing execution of Clarke’s previously suspended sentences is
affirmed.
1

3