State of Idaho v. Steven Kristof Carter

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50988

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 13, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
STEVEN KRISTOF CARTER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Order revoking probation, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, 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; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Steven Kristof Carter pled guilty to domestic violence or battery in the presence of a child.
I.C. §§ 18-918(2), 18-903(a), and 18-918(4). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges
were dismissed. The district court sentenced Carter to a unified term of twelve years, with a
minimum period of confinement of two and one-half years, but after a period of retained
jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Carter on probation. Subsequently, Carter
admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked
probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. On appeal, Carter does not challenge
the district court’s decision to revoke probation but argues only that his sentence is excessive.

1
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could
reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150,
154 (Ct. App. 2020).
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 and are relevant to
the defendant’s contention that the trial court should have reduced the sentence sua sponte upon
revocation of probation. State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 621, 288 P.3d 835, 838 (Ct. App. 2012).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Carter’s previously
suspended sentence is affirmed.

2