49541 State v. Patton

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 49540/49541

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 22, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID LEE PATTON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Javier Gabiola, District Judge.

Order revoking probation and executing the previously suspended sentence, and
judgment of conviction and unified five-year sentence, with three years
determinate, for felony violation of no contact order, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 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
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 49540, David Lee Patton pled
guilty to felony stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code § 18-7905(1)(a). The district court imposed
a unified sentence of five years, with two years determinate, but after a period of retained
jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Patton on probation. Subsequently, Patton violated
the terms of his probation, in part by incurring new criminal charges in Docket No. 49541. Patton
admitted to violating the terms of the probation in Docket No. 49540, and pled guilty to felony
violation of a no contact order, I.C. § 18-920(3), in Docket No. 49541.

1
At the consolidated disposition hearing and sentencing hearing, Patton asked the district
court to suspend the sentences and grant probation in each case. In Docket No. 49540, the district
court revoked probation and ordered execution of the previously suspended sentence. In Docket
No. 49541, the district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with three years determinate,
to run concurrently with the sentence in Docket No. 49540. Patton appeals contending that the
district court abused its discretion in revoking probation in Docket No. 49540 and by imposing an
excessive sentence in Docket No. 49541.
It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and conditions
of the probation has 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.
I.C. § 19-2601(4). 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.
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).

2
Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the records in these cases, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and ordering execution
of the previously suspended sentence in Docket No. 49540. Similarly, the district court did not
abuse its sentencing discretion in Docket No. 49541. Therefore, the order revoking probation and
directing execution of Patton’s previously suspended sentence in Docket No. 49540 and judgment
of conviction and sentence in Docket No. 49541 are affirmed.

3