State v. Michael A. Debord
Background
- Michael A. Debord pled guilty to grand theft under Idaho law.
- The district court sentenced him to a unified five-year term with two years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed him on three years supervised probation.
- Debord was later found to have violated probation conditions.
- The district court revoked probation and ordered execution of the original suspended sentence.
- Debord appealed, arguing the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and should have modified the sentence instead of executing it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation | Debord argued revocation was an abuse of discretion and the court should have reduced or modified the sentence rather than execute it | District court contended revocation was proper because Debord violated probation and execution of the original sentence was warranted | Court held no abuse of discretion; revocation and execution affirmed |
| Whether the court should have reduced the sentence sua sponte upon revocation | Debord argued the court should have exercised I.C.R. 35 authority to reduce sentence when revoking probation | State argued the court properly exercised discretion to execute the previously imposed sentence | Court found record did not require reduction; execution without modification was appropriate |
| Proper scope of appellate review for probation revocation | Debord urged review of probation revocation decision for abuse of discretion based on conduct and record | State relied on standard that revocation will be upheld absent abuse of discretion and court may consider events before and after sentencing | Court applied abuse-of-discretion standard and considered relevant pre- and post-sentencing record; upheld revocation |
| Consideration of rehabilitation and public protection in revocation decision | Debord argued rehabilitation goals or protection of society justified continued probation or lesser sanction | State maintained revocation aligns with goals of rehabilitation and public safety given violations | Court affirmed that trial court properly weighed rehabilitation and societal protection in revocation decision |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beckett, 122 Idaho 324, 834 P.2d 326 (Ct. App. 1992) (probation may be revoked for any violation; court may execute suspended sentence or reduce under I.C.R. 35)
- State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 758 P.2d 713 (Ct. App. 1988) (standards for probation revocation and judicial discretion)
- State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 772 P.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1989) (probation revocation discretion affirmed)
- State v. Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 899 P.2d 984 (Ct. App. 1995) (revocation must consider rehabilitation and protection of society)
- State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (Ct. App. 2012) (review focuses on conduct underlying revocation; appellate review limited to record before trial court)
- State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct. App. 2009) (appellate review of executed sentence after probation considers full record before and after original judgment)