IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket Nos. 46232/46233 STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 17, 2019 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED MARIA SOLEDAD RUIZ-SMALL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Steven Hippler, District Judge. Order revoking probation and execution of the underlying sentence, judgment of conviction and sentence, and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before HUSKEY, Judge, LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Maria Soledad Ruiz-Small pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). The district court sentenced Ruiz-Small to a unified seven-year sentence, with three years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Ruiz-Small on probation. Subsequently, Ruiz-Small admitted to violating the terms of the probation and she pled guilty to a second charge of possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c). The district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original seven-year sentence, with three years determinate. For the second possession of a controlled substance charge, the district 1 court imposed a unified five-year sentence, with two years determinate, to run concurrently. Ruiz-Small filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Ruiz-Small appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation, imposing an excessive sentence, and denying her I.C.R. 35 motion. 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. A decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Beckett, 122 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals