State v. Joe Robert Maltos, Jr. ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 37111
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )     2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 605
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )     Filed: August 24, 2010
    )
    v.                                               )     Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    JOE ROBERT MALTOS, JR.,                          )     THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
    )     OPINION AND SHALL NOT
    Defendant-Appellant.                      )     BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
    )
    Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin
    Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge.
    Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified eight-year sentence
    with four-year determinate term for felony injury to a child, affirmed.
    Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Heather M. Carlson, Deputy
    Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
    Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy
    Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
    ________________________________________________
    Before LANSING, Chief Judge, GUTIERREZ, Judge
    and MELANSON, Judge
    PER CURIAM
    Joe Robert Maltos, Jr. was convicted of felony injury to a child, 
    Idaho Code § 18
    -
    1501(1). The district court imposed a unified eight-year sentence with a four-year determinate
    term, but after a period of retained jurisdiction, suspended the sentence and placed Maltos on
    probation. Subsequently, Maltos admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the
    district court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence.
    Maltos appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte
    reduce his sentences upon revoking probation.
    Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the
    factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are well established and
    1
    need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 
    121 Idaho 114
    , 117-18, 
    822 P.2d 1011
    , 1014-
    15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 
    106 Idaho 447
    , 449-51, 
    680 P.2d 869
    , 871-73 (Ct. App.
    1984); State v. Toohill, 
    103 Idaho 565
    , 568, 
    650 P.2d 707
    , 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing
    the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 
    144 Idaho 722
    , 726, 
    170 P.3d 387
    , 391 (2007).
    When we review a sentence that is ordered into execution following a period of
    probation, we will examine the entire record encompassing events before and after the original
    judgment. State v. Hanington, 
    148 Idaho 26
    , 29, 
    218 P.3d 5
    , 8 (Ct. App. 2009). We base our
    review upon the facts existing when the sentence was imposed as well as events occurring
    between the original sentencing and the revocation of probation. 
    Id.
    Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot
    say that the district court abused its discretion in ordering execution of Maltos’ original sentences
    without modification. Therefore, the order directing execution of Maltos’ previously suspended
    sentence is affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 8/24/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021