State of Idaho v. Jason Lee Mayers

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51018

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 14, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JASON LEE MAYERS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Alan C. Stephens, Senior District Judge.

Order revoking probation and execution of unified seven-year sentence with three-
years determinate term for felony driving under the influence, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
Jason Lee Mayers pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho Code § 18-8004.
In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed including an allegation that he
was a persistent violator. The district court imposed a unified term of seven years with three years
determinate and retained jurisdiction. Following the term of retained jurisdiction, the district court
suspended Mayers’ sentence and placed him on probation for five years. Subsequently, Mayers
admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked
probation and ordered execution of the original sentence. Mayers filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35

1
motion which the district court denied.1 Mayers appeals, contending that the district court abused
its discretion in revoking 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. 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. 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 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 Mayers’ underlying sentence. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution
of Mayers’ previously suspended sentence is affirmed.

1
The denial of the Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not an issue in this appeal.
2