State v. Jason Zane Garner, 161 Idaho 708

Jason Garner pled guilty to two drug counts and entered an Alford plea on a stalking charge; aggregate sentence included concurrent drug terms and a consecutive stalking term. District court retained jurisdiction and assigned Garner to a rider (treatment) program which he completed.
After release, Garner was placed on five years’ supervised probation with conditions including: not leaving the Third Judicial District without written permission, obeying a no-contact order with the stalking victim, and following probation officer instructions.
Victim observed Garner sitting in his truck in an Albertsons parking lot roughly 30 yards away from her workplace; she photographed his truck (license plate readable), later reported repeated drive-bys near her home, and testified Garner appeared to look and smile at her.
An arrest warrant issued for alleged probation violations; an evidentiary hearing and a disposition hearing were held before two different judges. Probation officer testified Garner gave inconsistent explanations and failed to accept responsibility.
District court found Garner willfully violated probation (travel restriction and no-contact instruction), revoked probation, and executed the underlying sentence (ten years, six years fixed). Garner’s Rule 35 motion was denied and he appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether I.C. statutes on revocation conflict with Idaho Crim. R. 33(f)	Rule 33(f) improperly limits statutory authority to revoke on any violation	Rule 33(f) governs and requires willful violation before revocation	Rule 33(f) harmonizes with statutes; revocation requires a willful violation
Whether sufficient evidence supported finding of willful contact with victim	Evidence (victim sightings, photos, texts, drive-bys, inconsistent explanations) supports inference of willfulness	No proof Garner knew victim’s workplace or intended contact; presence could be innocent	Substantial and competent evidence supported finding of willful violation
Whether district court abused discretion in revoking probation	Revocation appropriate given officer’s testimony and defendant’s lack of accountability	Discretion should favor continued rehabilitation (another rider)	No abuse of discretion; court properly exercised judgment after hearing
Whether Rule 33(f) should be subordinated to statutes when construing revocation authority	Statutes permit revocation upon proven violation without willfulness requirement	Court rulemaking authority and statutory language allow reading in willfulness	Rule 33(f) is valid and applies; prior inconsistent opinions overruled as to this issue

State v. Sanchez, 149 Idaho 102 (discusses two-step review for probation revocation)
State v. Knutsen, 138 Idaho 918 (addresses proving violations and review standards)
State v. Easley, 156 Idaho 214 (framework for abuse-of-discretion review)
State v. Two Jinn, Inc., 148 Idaho 706 (statute and rule interpretation; avoid conflict)
State v. Burnight, 132 Idaho 654 (statutory interpretation principles)
State v. Johnson, 145 Idaho 970 (procedural vs. substantive conflict between statute and rule)
State v. Beam, 121 Idaho 862 (rule vs. statute precedence on substantive matters)