State v. Le Veque, 426 P.3d 461

Defendant Kilo Le Veque pleaded guilty to burglary and possession of a controlled substance; the court imposed unified sentences, retained jurisdiction, then suspended the sentences and placed him on three years probation.
The Department of Correction classified Le Veque as a sex-offender probationer after discovering a prior South Dakota sex-offense conviction; the district court twice denied Le Veque's motions to modify or terminate sex-offender conditions (those rulings were not appealed).
While on sex-offender probation, Le Veque engaged in unapproved sexual conduct, failed to be truthful on polygraph exams, was terminated from sex-offender treatment for lack of responsibility, and had substance-use violations; the court found willful violations at a revocation hearing.
The district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the previously suspended sentence, but retained jurisdiction and recommended sex-offender treatment after "full disclosure" verified by a polygraph.
The Department placed Le Veque in a substance-abuse program instead; after he completed that program the prosecutor and Department recommended reinstating probation, but the district court relinquished jurisdiction because Le Veque had not obtained the recommended polygraph.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused discretion by revoking probation without re‑adjudicating the validity of sex‑offender terms	State: court may revoke once violation proven; prior rulings resolved terms; revocation was proper given willful violations	Le Veque: court should have re‑determined whether the sex‑offender conditions were valid before revoking based on those conditions	Court: No abuse of discretion. Court previously addressed and denied motions challenging terms; violations were proven and revocation was within discretion
Whether relinquishing jurisdiction for failure to obtain a polygraph (per court recommendation) was proper	State: relinquishment was within discretion; distinguishes cases relied on by Le Veque	Le Veque: court violated due process (and Fifth Amendment) by treating a recommendation as an order and relinquishing jurisdiction solely for failing to comply	Court: Abused discretion. The polygraph language was a non‑specific recommendation, not a definite court order; relinquishment was arbitrary; vacate relinquishment and remand for new judge to conduct jurisdictional review

State v. Rose, 144 Idaho 762 (court may revoke probation only after finding violation) (explains standard for probation revocation)
State v. Garner, 161 Idaho 708 (two‑step revocation process: find violation, then discretionary revocation)
State v. Jones, 123 Idaho 315 (Ct. App.) (courts may examine validity of probation terms alleged to be invalid)
State v. Hayes, 99 Idaho 713 (court should declare invalid probation term when unrelated to rehabilitation)
State v. Mummert, 98 Idaho 452 (legal validity of probation terms is question of law)
State v. Van Komen, 160 Idaho 534 (remand to a different judge required for jurisdictional review in certain relinquishment contexts)
State v. Dunlap, 155 Idaho 345 (a trial court need not explicitly state it is exercising discretion if record shows it recognized the issue)
Hull v. Geisler, 163 Idaho 247 (standards for appellate review of discretionary decisions)