State v. Danielle Dawn Kroeger

Danielle Kroeger pled guilty to felony DUI (Docket No. 44840); received a unified 5-year sentence with 2 years determinate, suspended, and 3 years supervised probation. A special probation condition warned that violations could lead to retained jurisdiction or execution of the sentence.
About 18 months later Kroeger was charged with possession of methamphetamine in two new cases (Docket Nos. 44841 and 44842); the State moved to revoke probation in Docket No. 44840.
Under a plea agreement Kroeger admitted the probation violation and pled guilty to two counts of meth possession; the district court revoked probation, executed the underlying sentence on Docket No. 44840, and imposed concurrent unified sentences of 7 years (with differing determinate terms) in the two possession cases, retaining jurisdiction in all three matters.
After a period of retained jurisdiction, the court commuted the Docket No. 44840 sentence and suspended the sentences in the possession cases, placing Kroeger on supervised probation in those cases.
Kroeger appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion by (1) imposing excessive sentences in Docket Nos. 44841 and 44842 and (2) retaining jurisdiction rather than placing her back on probation in Docket No. 44840.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the record and affirmed: it found no abuse of discretion in either the sentencing or the probation revocation/retention decisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sentences in Dockets 44841 and 44842 were excessive	Sentences were excessive	Sentences were within trial court discretion	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion
Whether trial court abused discretion by retaining jurisdiction in Docket 44840 instead of reinstating probation	Retention was improper; should have probated	Revocation/retention appropriate after probation violation	Affirmed revocation and retention; no abuse of discretion
Whether revocation was proper based on probation violation	Violation did not warrant executing sentence	Violation justified revocation to protect society and further rehabilitation	Revocation proper; court reasonably exercised discretion
Standard for reviewing sentencing/probation decisions	N/A (challenge to reasonableness)	Trial court has broad sentencing discretion; consider entire sentence and rehabilitation/societal protection	Appellate review deference; upheld district court decisions

State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 822 P.2d 1011 (Court of Appeals) (sets out sentencing review standards)
State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 680 P.2d 869 (Court of Appeals) (sentencing factors and discretion)
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Court of Appeals) (sentencing review principles)
State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 170 P.3d 387 (Idaho Supreme Court) (consider entire sentence on review)
State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (Court of Appeals) (probation revocation standards)
State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 772 P.2d 260 (Court of Appeals) (probation revocation discretion)
State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Court of Appeals) (revocation and sentencing options)
State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 899 P.2d 984 (Court of Appeals) (rehabilitation and public protection in revocation decisions)
State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Court of Appeals) (alternatives after probation violation)
State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (Court of Appeals) (focus on underlying conduct when reviewing revocation)