State of Idaho v. Kiara Jessie Linn Finney

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52882

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 6, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KIARA JESSIE LINN FINNEY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez
Perce County. Hon. Mark Monson, District Judge.

Order revoking probation and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for aggravated assault, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender; Katherine C. Ball and Michaela Lasher, University of
Idaho Legal Aid Clinic, 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
Kiara Jessie Linn Finney pled guilty to aggravated assault. I.C. §§ 18-901, 18-905(a), and
18-906. In exchange for that guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court
withheld judgment and placed Finney on probation. Subsequently, Finney admitted to violating
the terms of the probation. The district court consequently revoked Finney’s withheld judgment
and probation and sentenced Finney to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two years. Finney filed an I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction of the sentence, which

1
the district court denied. Finney appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in
revoking probation and that the sentence is excessive.
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.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and
need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984);
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the
length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722,
726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could
reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150,
154 (Ct. App. 2020).

2
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 the sentence imposed.
Therefore, the order revoking probation and Finney’s sentence are affirmed.

3