51487 51488 State v. Johnson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51486/51487/51488

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 9, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
AUSTIN LLOYD JOHNSON, ) 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. James S. Cawthon, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation and directing execution of previously suspended
sentences, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In Docket No. 51486, Austin Lloyd Johnson pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were
dismissed. The district court withheld judgment and placed Johnson on probation for a period of
three years. In Docket No. 51487, Johnson pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance,
I.C. § 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district
court imposed a sentence of seven years with two years determinate, suspended the sentence, and
placed Johnson on probation for a period of five years with an order that he complete Drug Court.
In Docket No. 51486, Johnson admitted violating his probation and the district court revoked the

1
withheld judgment, imposed an underlying sentence of seven years with three years determinate,
and placed Johnson on probation for a period of seven years with an order to complete Drug Court.
Subsequently, Johnson admitted to violating his probation in each case by failing to complete Drug
Court. The district court discharged Johnson from Drug Court, revoked his probation, imposed
the underlying sentences, and retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction,
the district court placed Johnson on probation in both cases for a period of four years.
In Docket No. 51488, Johnson pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C.
§ 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district
court imposed an underlying, concurrent sentence of five years with one year determinate,
suspended the sentence, and placed Johnson on probation for a period of five years subject to the
same conditions as in the other two cases. Johnson admitted violating probation in the other two
cases and the district court revoked and reinstated probation in the two other cases with an order
to complete Drug Court.
Johnson entered Drug Court for a second time, completed Drug Court, and was placed on
unsupervised probation in all three cases. Johnson later admitted to again violating his probation.
At the disposition hearing, the district court revoked Johnson’s probation and executed his
underlying concurrent sentences. Johnson appeals, contending that the district court abused its
discretion in revoking probation and executing his underlying sentences
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. 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

2
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 also a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and
the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a 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).
When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of probation,
we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original judgment.
State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 29, 218 P.3d 5, 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our review upon
the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring between the original
sentencing and the revocation of probation. Id. Thus, this Court will consider the elements of the
record before the trial court that are properly made part of the record on appeal. Morgan, 153
Idaho at 621, 288 P.3d at 838.
Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot
say that the district court abused its discretion either in revoking probation or in ordering execution
of Johnson’s sentences. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and directing execution of
Johnson’s previously suspended sentences are affirmed.

3