State v. Nicholas Shane Clausen, 44545

Clausen pleaded guilty (Alford plea) to grand theft in 2015; court imposed a unified 5-year sentence with 2 years determinate, suspended, and placed him on ~2.5 years supervised probation.
A condition of probation required completion of mental health court; Clausen was terminated from that program for noncompliance.
At the revocation hearing Clausen admitted termination from mental health court constituted a probation violation; neither party nor the court made any express finding or admission that the violation was willful.
The district court revoked probation, executed the underlying sentence, and retained jurisdiction; Clausen appealed challenging the lack of an express willfulness finding.
The Court of Appeals reviewed applicable standards (two-step revocation review and abuse of discretion) and concluded the district court abused its discretion by revoking probation without an express finding of willfulness and without record evidence supporting an implied finding.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether probation may be revoked absent an express finding that the violation was willful	The State argued revocation was appropriate because Clausen admitted the violation (termination from mental health court) and revocation discretion remained with the court.	Clausen argued the court must make an express finding of willfulness under ICR 33(f); revocation without such a finding was an abuse of discretion.	Reversed: revocation was improper because the district court did not make an express finding of willfulness and the record did not support an implicit finding.

State v. Garner, 161 Idaho 708 (Idaho 2017) (court may infer willfulness from evidence but an express finding is required to support revocation)
State v. Knutsen, 138 Idaho 918 (Ct. App. 2003) (two-step review for probation revocation: violation proved, then discretionary revocation reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Prelwitz, 132 Idaho 191 (Ct. App. 1998) (remand guidance where revocation is reversed; reinstatement only when no violation occurred)
State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (Idaho 2010) (discusses fundamental error doctrine; court here rejects applying Perry to replace abuse-of-discretion review)