eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Idaho Court of Appeals
 2019-05

State v. Campbell ( 2019 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 46168
STATE OF IDAHO,                                )
)   Filed: May 17, 2019
Plaintiff-Respondent,                   )
)   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                             )
)   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TIFFANEY D. CAMPBELL,                          )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
)   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant.                    )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Minidoka County. Hon. Jonathan P. Brody, District Judge.
Order revoking probation, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy
Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before HUSKEY Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Tiffaney D. Campbell pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen. I.C.
§ 18-1506. The district court sentenced Campbell to a unified five-year sentence, with two years
determinate, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed
Campbell on probation.     Subsequently, Campbell admitted to violating the terms of the
probation, and the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the original
sentence. Campbell appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking
probation.
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
    1 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. 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 in revoking probation. Therefore, the order
revoking probation and directing execution of Campbell’s previously suspended sentence is
affirmed.
2