50608 State v. Sittre

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50607 & 50608

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: July 10, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JONNINE LISA SITTRE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Robert C. Naftz, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation and executing previously suspended sentences,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian Dickson, 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 includes two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 50607, Sittre pled guilty to
felony driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI), Idaho Code §§ 18-8004, -8005(9),
and the district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of five years, and retained jurisdiction. Following her rider, the district court
suspended her sentence and placed her on probation. Sittre admitted to violating the terms of her
probation, and the district court continued her probation with additional conditions. Thereafter,
Sittre again admitted to violating the terms of her probation. In Docket No. 50608, Sittre pled
guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1); the district court

1
imposed a unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of incarceration of three years, to
run concurrently with her sentence in Docket No. 50607. The district court suspended both
sentences and placed Sittre on probation. Sittre subsequently admitted to violating her probation
in both cases, and the district court continued Sittre on probation with an additional term.
Thereafter, Sittre again admitted to violating the terms of her probation in both cases, and the
district court revoked her probation and executed her underlying sentences. Sittre timely appeals
and asserts the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation.
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.
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 records in these cases, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and ordering execution
of Sittre’s sentences. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and directing execution of Sittre’s
previously suspended sentences are affirmed.

2