State v. Levi Wesley Cole

Defendant Levi Wesley Cole entered an Alford plea to felony domestic battery and received a unified seven-year sentence with three years determinate, but the sentence was suspended after a period of retained jurisdiction and Cole was placed on probation.
About four months later Cole was charged with multiple new offenses including felony attempted strangulation, felony domestic battery with traumatic injury, misdemeanor assault, three counts of intimidation of a witness, and three counts of violating a no-contact order.
Pursuant to a plea agreement Cole admitted violating probation in the first case and pleaded guilty to felony domestic violence with traumatic injury, one count of intimidation of a witness, and one count of violating a no-contact order.
The district court revoked probation and executed the original seven-year sentence (three years determinate), and imposed concurrent unified sentences for the new convictions, resulting in an aggregate ten-year sentence with five years determinate; the court later reduced Cole’s sentence to seven years with three years determinate.
The appeal challenged the probation revocation and the district court’s decision to execute the previously suspended sentence rather than reduce it sua sponte.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in revoking probation	Cole contended revocation was improper given rehabilitative aims and circumstances	State argued Cole violated probation terms and new violent offenses justified revocation	Court held no abuse of discretion; revocation was proper
Whether the court should have reduced the suspended sentence upon revocation	Cole argued the court should have reduced the sentence under I.C.R. 35 or sua sponte	State argued execution of the prior sentence was within discretion given new serious offenses	Court held execution without modification was within discretion
Proper standard of appellate review for probation revocation	Cole urged reversal based on alleged errors in weighing rehabilitation vs. public protection	State urged deferential abuse-of-discretion standard	Court applied abuse-of-discretion review and affirmed
Scope of record for reviewing sentence after probation revocation	Cole argued post-sentencing events and record warranted different outcome	State relied on trial court’s consideration of events before and after original sentencing	Court considered entire record (pre- and post-sentencing events) and found no basis to disturb sentence

State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (probation revocation and execution or reduction of suspended sentence)
State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 772 P.2d 260 (probation revocation standard)
State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (probation revocation factors)
State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 899 P.2d 984 (rehabilitation and public protection in revocation analysis)
State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (court’s authority to reduce sentence)
State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (scope of record on revocation/sentencing review)
State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 822 P.2d 1011 (sentencing discretion and review)
State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 680 P.2d 869 (sentencing review standards)
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (sentencing considerations)
State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 170 P.3d 387 (reviewing aggregate sentence)
State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 218 P.3d 5 (consideration of events before and after original sentencing)