State v. Cesar Antonio Sepulveda
Background
- Cesar Antonio Sepulveda was convicted of felony intimidating a witness and two misdemeanors for attempting to violate a no‑contact order.
- The district court imposed a unified five‑year sentence (three‑year minimum) for the felony and concurrent 180‑day sentences for the misdemeanors, with 180 days credit.
- The court initially exercised retained jurisdiction and later suspended the felony sentence, placing Sepulveda on probation.
- Sepulveda subsequently admitted violating probation conditions.
- The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the previously suspended sentence.
- Sepulveda appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion in revoking probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation | Sepulveda argued revocation was an abuse of discretion | The State argued any proven violation permits revocation and execution of the sentence | Court affirmed: no abuse of discretion in revoking probation |
| Whether execution of the original sentence without modification was appropriate | Sepulveda argued the sentence should have been modified or reduced | The State argued the court properly exercised its authority to execute the suspended sentence | Court affirmed execution of the original sentence without modification |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (Ct. App. 1992) (probation may be revoked for any violated term; court may execute or reduce sentence)
- State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 772 P.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1989) (standards for revocation discretionary)
- State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1988) (revocation review focuses on probation conditions and societal protection)
- State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 899 P.2d 984 (Ct. App. 1995) (court must consider rehabilitation and protection of society when revoking)
- State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Ct. App. 1989) (court may reduce sentence under I.C.R. 35 after violation)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (Ct. App. 2012) (appeal review focuses on conduct underlying revocation decision)