51792 State v. Moses

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51791/51792

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 18, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KYLE CHRISTOPHER MOSES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Nancy A. Baskin, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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. 51791, Kyle Christopher Moses pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were
dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of seven years with two years determinate,
suspended the sentence, and placed Moses on probation. Subsequently, Moses admitted to
violating the terms of the probation, and the district court reinstated probation for a period of five
years.
In Docket No. 51792, Moses pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-
2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court

1
imposed a unified term of seven years with three years determinate, suspended the sentence and
placed Moses on probation for a period of five years to run concurrent with the sentence in Docket
No. 51791.
The State subsequently filed reports of probation violations in both cases. Following an
evidentiary hearing, the district court found that Moses had violated several conditions of his
probation, including financial obligations which the district court found were not willful due to
inability to pay. The district court revoked Moses’s probation in both cases and retained
jurisdiction. Moses appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by revoking
probation because it considered non-willful probation violations in deciding to revoke probation
and, alternatively, did not exercise reason.
Moses argues that even though the district court found three of the seven probation
violations were non-willful, at the time of disposition, the district court indicated that it had found
seven violations and noted that it had found the violations willful. Contrary to Moses’s argument,
the district court did not specifically state that it had found each of the violations to be willful.
Moreover, the district court specifically discussed the four violations which were determined to be
willful. The record does not support Moses’s claim that the district court revoked Moses’s
probation based upon non-willful violations.
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

2
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 by revoking probation. Therefore, the orders
revoking probation are affirmed.

3