State v. Kim J. Day, 301 P.3d 655

Day pled guilty to grand theft; district court imposed a unified fourteen-year sentence with four years determinate, suspended and placed on probation.
Day violated probation by committing lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen and by becoming a persistent violator; probation violation report filed.
District court revoked probation, ordered execution of the underlying sentence, but stated it would reconsider if the lewd conduct conviction was overturned on appeal.
Day raised concern that the district court would lose jurisdiction to reconsider after Rule 35 motion period (14 days), and the court acknowledged uncertainty.
Day’s lewd conduct conviction was later reversed on appeal for a fatal variance; the court remanded or vacated the revocation in light of the reversal.
Court held that revocation based on a conviction later vacated was improper and vacated the revocation order, remanding for a new probation-status determination.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probation revocation was an abuse of discretion	Day argues district court abused discretion by revoking probation relying on a conviction later up for appeal.	Day contends the court had continuing jurisdiction to reinstate probation despite appeal, within Rule 35 timing constraints.	Yes, the revocation was an abuse of discretion due to misperceived continuing jurisdiction.
Whether case should be remanded for redetermination after vacatur	Day prevails that reversal of the underlying conviction requires reconsideration of probation status.	The district court could proceed under applicable standards but should await proper proceedings after reversal.	Remand for a new probation-revocation proceeding is required.

State v. Sanchez, 149 Idaho 102, 233 P.3d 33 (2009) (abuses of discretion in probation revocation standards)
State v. Hedger, 115 Idaho 598, 768 P.2d 1333 (1989) (multitiered discretionary review of probation decisions)
State v. Blake, 133 Idaho 237, 985 P.2d 117 (1999) (remand for reconsideration when basis of revocation is undermined by appellate reversal)
State v. Fleshman, 144 Idaho 772, 171 P.3d 263 (Ct. App. 2007) (residual jurisdiction limits and Rule 35 timing for probation issues)
State v. Wilson, 127 Idaho 506, 903 P.2d 95 (Ct. App. 1995) (probation violations may be found without a conviction beyond reasonable doubt)
State v. Dempsey, 146 Idaho 327, 193 P.3d 874 (Ct. App. 2008) (probation violation standards and proof requirements)