50301 State v. Mills

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50300/50301

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 29, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ROBERT FRANK MILLS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Scott Wayman, District Judge.

Orders revoking probation and executing the previously suspended sentence,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

GRATTON, Chief Judge, LORELLO, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 50300, Robert Frank Mills
pled guilty to operating a motor vehicle without owner’s consent, Idaho Code § 49-227. The
district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with two years determinate, suspended the
sentence and placed Mills on a term of probation. Subsequently, Mills violated the terms of his
probation by, in part, receiving new criminal charges in Docket No. 50301. Mills admitted to
violating the terms of the probation in Docket No. 50300 and pleaded guilty to felony possession
of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1), in Docket No. 50301. In Docket No. 50300, the
district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the previously suspended sentence, and

1
retained jurisdiction. In Docket No. 50301, the district court imposed a unified sentence of four
years, with two years determinate, to run concurrently with his sentence in Docket No. 50300, and
retained jurisdiction. After the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court suspended the
sentences and placed Mills on probation. Subsequently, Mills admitted to violating the terms of
the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the
original sentence in each case. Mills 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 records in these cases, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by revoking Mill’s probation and ordering
execution of his previously suspended sentences. Therefore, the orders revoking probation and
directing execution of Mills’ previously suspended sentences are affirmed.

2