52866 State v. Schwartz

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 52865 & 52866

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 30, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOHN THOMAS SCHWARTZ, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Butte
County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge.

Order revoking probation and ordering execution of previously suspended sentence
in Docket No. 52865, affirmed; judgment of conviction and concurrent unified
sentences of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one year, for
two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm in Docket No. 52866, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Abigael E. Schulz, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
_______________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In Docket No. 52865, John Thomas Schwartz pleaded guilty to felony possession of a
controlled substance, methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1), and entered an Alford1 plea
to misdemeanor domestic battery, I.C.§ 18-918(3)(b). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional
misdemeanor charge was dismissed, and the State agreed not to file any additional charges or
pursue a persistent violator sentencing enhancement. For the felony possession charge, the district
court imposed a unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

1
years, and for the misdemeanor domestic battery charge, the district court imposed a sentence of
180 days in county jail, with the sentences to run concurrently. After a period of retained
jurisdiction, the district court suspended the sentence and placed Schwartz on probation.
While on probation, Schwartz received new criminal charges in Docket No. 52866.
Schwartz admitted to violating the terms of the probation in Docket No. 52865, and the district
court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence.
In Docket No. 52866, Schwartz pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm,
I.C. § 18-3316, and for each count, the district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of five
years, with a minimum period of incarceration of one year. The district court ordered the sentences
in Docket No. 52866 to run consecutively to the sentence in Docket No. 52865.2 Schwartz appeals,
contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation in Docket No. 52865
and that the sentences in Docket No. 52866 are excessive.
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.

2
In each case, Schwartz filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35, which the district court denied.
Schwartz does not challenge the denial of his I.C.R. 35 motions on appeal.
2
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 the 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds
could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d
150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020).
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 Schwartz’s suspended sentence in Docket No. 52865 or by imposing the sentence in
Docket No. 52866. Therefore, the order revoking probation and directing execution of Schwartz’s
previously suspended sentence in Docket No. 52865 and the judgment of conviction and sentences
in Docket No. 52866 are affirmed.

3