State v. Pamela Borup

Pamela Borup pled guilty to felony domestic violence (Docket No. 44205) and was sentenced to a unified seven-year term with a three-year minimum; the court retained jurisdiction and placed her on the rider program.
After successful rider completion, the court suspended the sentence and imposed probation; Borup later admitted violating probation.
While probation revocation disposition was pending, Borup pled guilty to grand theft (and a misdemeanor no-contact violation) in Docket No. 44206; grand theft carried a seven-year unified term with a three-year minimum.
The district court revoked probation in Docket No. 44205, ordered execution of the sentence but reduced it to a unified six-year term (three-year minimum); the grand theft sentence was imposed to run concurrent with Docket No. 44205.
On appeal Borup did not challenge the probation revocation itself but argued both the modified domestic-violence sentence and the grand-theft sentence were excessive; she did not challenge the misdemeanor no-contact conviction.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the entire record (including events after original sentencing) and affirmed both the probation revocation execution/sentence modification and the concurrent grand-theft sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the modified sentence for felony domestic violence was excessive	Borup: the six-year unified term (3-year minimum) after revocation was excessive	State: sentence is within trial court's discretion given record and post-sentencing conduct	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion
Whether the grand theft sentence was excessive	Borup: seven-year unified term (3-year minimum) is excessive	State: concurrent sentence is discretionary and appropriate	Affirmed — no abuse of discretion
Whether the court should have further reduced sentence upon probation revocation by considering post-sentencing events	Borup: court should have reduced sentence more considering events between original sentencing and revocation	State: court properly considered the full record and exercised discretion	Affirmed — court properly reviewed entire record and did not err

State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 822 P.2d 1011 (Ct. App.) (standard of review and factors for sentencing)
State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 170 P.3d 387 (Ct. App.) (entire sentence is considered on review)
State v. Hanington, 148 Idaho 26, 218 P.3d 5 (Ct. App.) (review includes events occurring between original sentencing and probation revocation)
State v. Morgan, 153 Idaho 618, 288 P.3d 835 (Ct. App.) (record elements relevant to revocation review)
State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 680 P.2d 869 (Ct. App.) (sentencing discretion principles)
State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (Ct. App.) (sentencing discretion principles)