52568 State v. Ash

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52567 & 52568

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 16, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
COLTON JEB ASH, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Madison County. Hon. Steven W. Boyce, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kierra W. Mai, 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. 52567, Colton Jeb Ash pled guilty to grand theft. I.C. § 18-2403(1). In
exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Ash
to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. The district
court suspended the sentence and placed Ash on probation.
In Docket No. 52568, Ash pled guilty to grand theft. I.C. § 18-2403(1). In exchange for
his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Ash to a unified
term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, to be served
concurrently with his sentence in Docket No. 52567. As a result of this guilty plea, Ash also

1
admitted to violating the terms of his probation in Docket No. 52567. The district court revoked
probation and ordered execution of Ash’s sentence. The district court retained jurisdiction in both
cases and sent Ash to participate in the rider program. Following completion of his rider, the
district court suspended the sentences and placed Ash on probation. Numerous times Ash admitted
to violating the terms of his probation, and the district court continued him on probation.
Subsequently, Ash admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court
consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentences. Ash appeals,
contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking his probation.
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.
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 ordering execution of
Ash’s sentences. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and directing execution of Ash’s
previously suspended sentences are affirmed.

2