50564/50565 State v. Schaffer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50563/50564/50565

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 17, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MICHAEL ALAN SCHAFFER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Cynthia K.C. Meyer, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation and directing execution of Schaffer’s previously
suspended sentences in Docket Nos. 50563 and 50564; judgment of conviction and
sentence in Docket No. 50565, affirmed.

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

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
This appeal involves three consolidated cases. In Docket No. 50563, Schaffer pleaded
guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(6), and possession of
a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In August 2018, the district court imposed a unified
sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of incarceration of four years, for the driving under
the influence charge, and a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of three years, for the possession of a controlled substance charge. After a period of
retained jurisdiction, the district court placed Schaffer on a term of probation.

1
In September 2021, in Docket No. 50563, Schaffer admitted to violating the terms of the
probation, which included admitting to a new criminal charge in Docket No. 50564. Based on
Schaffer’s admission, in Docket No. 50563, the district court revoked Schaffer’s probation,
ordered execution of the previously suspended sentence, and retained jurisdiction. In Docket
No. 50564, Schaffer pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1),
and the district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of four years, and retained jurisdiction. Following a period of retained jurisdiction,
the district court placed Schaffer on a term of probation in each case.
In October 2022, Schaffer admitted to violating the terms of his probation in Docket
Nos. 50563 and 50564, which included admitting to a new criminal charge in Docket No. 50565.
In Docket Nos. 50563 and 50564, the district court revoked probation and executed the previously
suspended sentences. In Docket No. 50565, Schaffer pleaded guilty to delivery of a controlled
substance, I.C. § 37-2732(a)(1), and the district court imposed a unified sentence of eight years,
with a minimum period of incarceration of four years. Schaffer appeals, contending that the district
court abused its discretion in revoking probation in Docket Nos. 50563 and 50564 and by imposing
an excessive sentence in Docket No. 50565.
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.

2
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).
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 Schaffer’s previously suspended sentences in Docket Nos. 50563 and 50564 or in imposing
sentence in Docket No. 50565. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and directing execution
of Schaffer’s previously suspended sentences in Docket Nos. 50563 and 50564 and the judgment
of conviction and sentence in Docket No. 50565 are affirmed.

3