50371 State v. Grist

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50370/50371

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 19, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CODY JAMES GRIST, ) 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; judgment of conviction and unified sentence
of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years,
for unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley,
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. 50370, Cody James Grist pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were
dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of six years with two years determinate,
suspended the sentence, and placed Grist on probation for a period of five years. Later that
month, Grist admitted to violating the terms of the probation by committing a new crime of
unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. § 18-3316(1) (Docket No. 50371). The district court
consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of Grist’s sentence in Docket No. 50370.

1
In Docket No. 50371 the district court imposed a concurrent, unified sentence of five years with
one and one-half years determinate. Grist appeals, contending that the district court abused its
discretion by revoking probation in Docket No. 50370 and by imposing an excessive sentence in
Docket No. 50371.
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. 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 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).

2
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 the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in these cases, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and ordering
execution of Grist’s sentence without modification in Docket No. 50370 or by imposing sentence
in Docket No. 50371. Therefore, the order revoking probation and Grist’s judgment of
conviction are affirmed.

3