State v. Marcus Allen Peltier

Marcus Allen Peltier pled guilty to grand theft; additional charges were dismissed in exchange for the plea.
The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a two-year minimum, suspended execution, and placed Peltier on supervised probation.
Peltier later admitted violating probation; the court revoked probation, ordered execution of the sentence, and retained jurisdiction.
After retained jurisdiction, the court again suspended the sentence and returned Peltier to supervised probation.
Peltier again violated probation and failed to complete a court-ordered program; the court revoked probation and executed the previously suspended sentence.
Peltier appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation.

Issue	Peltier's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion by revoking probation?	Revocation was an abuse of discretion.	Probation terms were violated, justifying revocation.	No abuse; revocation affirmed.
Was execution of the original sentence without modification proper?	Execution was inappropriate or should have been modified.	Record supports execution given violations and court’s discretion.	Execution without modification was permissible and affirmed.

State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (Ct. App.) (trial court has discretion to revoke probation after violation)
State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 772 P.2d 260 (Ct. App.) (probation revocation standard)
State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct. App.) (review of probation revocation focuses on rehabilitation and public protection)
State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 899 P.2d 984 (Ct. App.) (probation revocation guided by rehabilitation and societal protection)
State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 783 P.2d 315 (Ct. App.) (court may reduce sentence under I.C.R. 35 after violation)
State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (Ct. App.) (appeal review focuses on record of conduct underlying revocation)