State of Idaho v. Christopher Lyle Kensler

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52859

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 14, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTOPHER LYLE KENSLER, ) 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 A. Baskin, District Judge.

Order revoking probation and ordering execution of underlying sentences,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, 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
Christopher Lyle Kensler pleaded guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho Code §§ 18-
901(b), -905(a) and intimidating a witness, I.C. § 18-2604. In exchange for his guilty plea,
additional charges were dismissed. The district court granted Kensler a withheld judgment and
placed him on probation for a term of five years. Subsequently, Kensler admitted to violating the
terms of his probation and the district court revoked the withheld judgment and imposed
concurrent unified sentences of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years,
on each charge, suspended the sentences, and placed Kensler back on probation for a term of four
years. Kensler again admitted to violating the terms of his probation and the district court
consequently revoked probation, ordered execution of the underlying sentences, and retained

1
jurisdiction. After a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended Kensler’s
sentences and placed him on probation for a term of two years. Kensler again admitted to violating
the terms of his probation and the district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the
underlying sentences. Kensler 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 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.
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 and ordering execution of
Kensler’s sentences. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Kensler’s
previously suspended sentences is affirmed.

2