50137 State v. Veien

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50136/50137

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 18, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JACOB AVERY VEIEN, ) 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. Nancy Baskin, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation and executing previously suspended sentences,
affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, 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
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 50136, Jacob Avery Veien
pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). The district court
sentenced Veien to a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of
two years, suspended the sentence, and placed Veien on a term of probation. Subsequently, Veien
admitted to violating the terms of the probation, which included admitting to a new charge in
Docket No. 50137. The district court revoked, but reinstated, Veien’s probation. In Docket
No. 50137, Veien pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c). The
district court imposed a unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of incarceration of

1
two years, to run concurrently with the sentence in Docket No. 50136. The district court suspended
the sentence and placed Veien on probation. Thereafter, Veien admitted to violating the terms of
his probation in both cases, and the district court revoked Veien’s probation, ordered execution of
the previously suspended sentences, and retained jurisdiction after which the district court placed
Veien on probation. Once again, Veien admitted to violating the terms of his probation, and the
district court revoked his probation and executed his previously suspended sentence in each case.
Veien 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 has 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. 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.
Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the records in these cases, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and ordering execution
of Veien’s previously suspended sentences. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and directing
execution of Veien’s previously suspended sentences are affirmed.

2