50092 State v. Snipe

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50091 & 50092

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 23, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SARAH RYAN SNIPE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In Docket No. 50091, Sarah Ryan Snipe pled guilty to burglary. I.C. §§ 18-1401 and 18-
1403. In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court
sentenced Snipe to a unified term of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two
years, but suspended the sentence and placed Snipe on probation. In Docket No. 50092, Snipe
pled guilty to three counts of burglary. In exchange for her guilty pleas, twenty-four additional
counts were dismissed. The district court sentenced Snipe to concurrent, unified terms of ten years,
with minimum periods of confinement of five years.

1
Based on the new guilty pleas, Snipe admitted to violating the terms of her original
probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the
original sentence. The district court ordered that Snipe’s sentences be served concurrently and
concurrent with another unrelated sentence. However, the district court retained jurisdiction and
sent Snipe to participate in the rider program. Following completion of the retained jurisdiction,
the district court suspended the sentences and placed her on probation. Snipe violated the terms
of the probation, but the district court continued her probation. Snipe again admitted violating the
terms of her probation. The district court revoked her probation and ordered execution of her
sentences. Snipe appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking
probation without reinstating probation or again retaining jurisdiction.
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 I.C.R. 35 to reduce the
sentence. State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992). The court may
also reinstate probation or order a period of retained jurisdiction. State v. Urrabazo, 150 Idaho
158, 162, 244 P.3d 1244, 1248 (2010). When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution
following a period of probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before
and after the original judgment. State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App.
2009). We base our review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as
events occurring between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Thus, this
Court will consider the elements of the record before the trial court that are properly made part of
the record on appeal. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012).
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). Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. Id. There can be no abuse of

2
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
Snipe’s sentences without retaining jurisdiction. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and
directing execution of Snipe’s previously suspended sentences are affirmed.

3