CourtListener 10854840•State of Idaho v. Phillip Westley Powers
State of Idaho v. Phillip Westley Powers
CourtListener 10854840Idahoctapp06.02.2026
Gesamter Gesetzestext
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 52582
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 6, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
PHILLIP WESTLEY POWERS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.
Order revoking probation, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Phillip Westley Powers pled guilty to grand theft, Idaho Code § 18-2403(4). In exchange
for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he is a persistent
violator. The district court sentenced Powers to a unified term of fourteen years, with a minimum
period of confinement of six years, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the
sentence and placed Powers on probation. Approximately a year later, Powers admitted to
violating the terms of probation and, in April 2024, the district court continued Powers on
probation. In November 2024, Powers again admitted to violating the terms of probation, and the
district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence.
1
Powers filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1 Powers appeals,
contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation. Specifically, Powers
asserts that the district court should have retained jurisdiction or continued him on 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 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. 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 these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion in either revoking probation or in ordering execution of
Powers’s sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Powers’s
previously suspended sentence is affirmed.
1
On appeal, Powers does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion for
reduction of sentence.
2
Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort
Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.