State v. Timothy James

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36864

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 505
)
Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: June 9, 2010
)
v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
TIMOTHY JAMES, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
Falls County. Hon. Randy J. Stoker, District Judge.

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified seven-year sentence
with five-year determinate term for possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Heather M. Carlson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM
Timothy James pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to possession of a controlled
substance. I.C. §§ 37-2732(c)(1), 37-2707(d). Consistent with the plea agreement, the district
court imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with a five-year determinate term, and suspended
the sentence and placed James on probation. James thereafter violated the terms of his probation
and, after a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed
James on probation. Subsequently, James again was found to have violated the terms of the
probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the
original sentence. In the original plea agreement, James waived his right to appeal his sentence.

1
However, James now appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking
probation, that the sentence is excessive, and that the district court should have sua sponte
reduced the sentence.
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 Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett, 122 Idaho at
326, 834 P.2d at 328; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). 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 326, 834 P.2d at 328.
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).
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.
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

2
execution of James’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking
probation and directing execution of James’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.

3