State v. Sheila Dawn Bee ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 42751
STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 662
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: October 20, 2015
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
SHEILA DAWN BEE, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bonneville County. Hon. Jon J. Shindurling, District Judge.
Order revoking probation, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Sheila Dawn Bee pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401. The district court
withheld judgment and placed Bee on probation for four years. Subsequently, Bee violated her
probation and the district court withdrew the withheld judgment, imposed a unified sentence of
five years, with a minimum term of confinement of two years, and continued Bee on probation.
Following two additional violations, the district court imposed the original sentence, but after a
period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Bee on probation. Bee
admitted to violating the terms of the probation two more times, and the district court
consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Bee appeals,
contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation.
1
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 Idaho Criminal Rule 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.
Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot
say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering
execution of Bee’s sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and
directing execution of Bee’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.
2