Idaho Code
Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 20-221 (2026)

Modification of terms or conditions of probation or suspension of sentence — termination of probation. 

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Modification of terms or conditions of probation or suspension of sentence — termination of probation. 

(1) By order duly entered the court may impose and may at any time modify any terms or conditions of probation or suspension of sentence. The court shall cause a copy of any such order to be delivered to the board of correction, to the prosecuting attorney and to the probationer.

(2)  Any party or the board of correction may submit to the court a request to modify the terms and conditions of probation for any probationer under the board’s supervision at any time during the period of probation. A request to modify the terms and conditions of probation shall be supported by a statement attested to under oath or signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 9-1406, Idaho Code, setting forth the facts upon which the request is based. The requesting party or the board, as the case may be, shall deliver a copy of the request and statement to all parties and to the board. The prosecuting attorney shall notify the victim of the request to modify the terms and conditions of probation. Any responses to a request to modify shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of submittal of the request. The court may, without a hearing, rule upon a request to modify based on a review of the case, the request, the statement and any responses to the request, or may schedule a hearing on the request to modify. The court shall by written order rule on the request to modify within sixty (60) days of the date of submittal of the request.
(3)  Any party or the board of correction may submit to the court a request to terminate the probation for any probationer under the board’s supervision at any time during the period of probation. A request to terminate probation shall be supported by a statement attested to under oath or signed under penalty of perjury pursuant to section 9-1406, Idaho Code, setting forth the facts upon which the request is based. The requesting party or the board, as the case may be, shall deliver a copy of the request and statement to all parties and to the board. The prosecuting attorney shall notify the victim of a request to terminate probation. Any responses to a request to terminate probation shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the date of submittal of the request. The court may, without a hearing, rule upon a request to terminate based on a review of the case, the request, the statement and any responses to the request, or may schedule a hearing on the request to terminate. The court shall rule on the request within sixty (60) days of the date of submittal of the request. A court order granting a request to terminate probation under this subsection shall be deemed a final discharge from the remaining period of probation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1964–2026 · leading case: State v. Kody Ray Gibbs, 405 P.3d 567 (Idaho 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Kody Ray Gibbs, 405 P.3d 567 (Idaho 2017). · cites it 24× “I.C. § 20-221; I.C. § 20-222(2). However, a review of the transcript in 11 the present case shows no discussion, analysis, or argument on the modification of the terms of probation.”
State v. Cottrell, 271 P.3d 1243 (Idaho Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “If the monthly restitution payments became overly difficult, if not altogether impossible to make due to his circumstances, Cottrell could have moved for a review or modification of probation conditions under Idaho Code § 20-221 . Therefore, we conclude the magistrate did not…”
State v. Wrede, 539 P.3d 1015 (Idaho Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 18× “§ 20-225, “nothing in that statute overrides a district court’s 1 Idaho Code § 20-221 (1) provides that a “court may impose and may at any time modify any terms or conditions of probation or suspension of sentence.”
State v. Schumacher, 959 P.2d 465 (Idaho Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 20-221 (Supp.1996). In addition, our Supreme Court has held that “after a judge has granted probation, he retains jurisdiction during the probationary period, and has continuing discretion to modify its conditions.”
Franklin v. State, 392 P.2d 552 (Idaho 1964). · cites it 4× “A startling example is I.C. § 20-221, which states that, "By order duly entered the court may impose and may at any time modify any conditions of probation or suspension of sentence.”
State v. Vasquez, 416 P.3d 108 (Idaho 2018). · cites it 2× “While the Justice Reinvestment Initiative as adopted in 2014 allows for IDOC to file its own documents with the court without prosecutor approval, see Idaho Code section 20-221(3), this case presents a potential concern.”
State v. Brown, 511 P.3d 859 (Idaho 2022). · cites it 2× “2007) (citing I.C. §§ 20-221, 20-222); State v. Peterson, 149 Idaho 808, 811-12 , 241 P.”
State v. Klingler, 148 P.3d 1240 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 20-221 (granting authority to modify conditions of probation); I.”
State v. Wardle, 53 P.3d 1227 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “Although this term may appear to give unfettered discretion to the probation officer, the exercise of that discretion is always subject to review by the sentencing court, for a defendant may file a motion asking the court to countermand a probation officer’s counseling…”
State v. Cornwall, 518 P.2d 863 (Idaho 1974). · cites it 4× “315 (1972); Feit, A Guide To Defense Counsel in the Exercise of His Postconviction Responsibilities, 9 Crim.L.Bull. 149 (1973); The President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Courts 19 (1967).”
State v. Williams, 878 P.2d 213 (Idaho Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “I.C. §§ 20-221, -222; State v. Oyler, 92 Idaho 43, 47 , 436 P.”
State v. Dorsey, 889 P.2d 93 (Idaho Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Although the order specified that the prosecutor would establish the sums due and submit a claim to defense counsel and the court within thirty days, the order did not purport to limit the recovery of restitution nor impose any sanction for noncompliance on the part of the…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Idaho Code § 20-221(1) — 4 cases
State v. Kody Ray Gibbs, 405 P.3d 567 (Idaho 2017). “I.C. § 20-221; I.C. § 20-222(2). However, a review of the transcript in 11 the present case shows no discussion, analysis, or argument on the modification of the terms of probation.”
State v. Wrede, 539 P.3d 1015 (Idaho Ct. App. 2023). “§ 20-225, “nothing in that statute overrides a district court’s 1 Idaho Code § 20-221 (1) provides that a “court may impose and may at any time modify any terms or conditions of probation or suspension of sentence.”
State v. Brian Edward Hirschi (Idaho Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Medrano, 502 P.3d 61 (Idaho Ct. App. 2021).
— Idaho Code § 20-221(2) — 5 cases
State v. Kody Ray Gibbs, 405 P.3d 567 (Idaho 2017). “I.C. § 20-221; I.C. § 20-222(2). However, a review of the transcript in 11 the present case shows no discussion, analysis, or argument on the modification of the terms of probation.”
State v. Wrede, 539 P.3d 1015 (Idaho Ct. App. 2023). “§ 20-225, “nothing in that statute overrides a district court’s 1 Idaho Code § 20-221 (1) provides that a “court may impose and may at any time modify any terms or conditions of probation or suspension of sentence.”
State v. Barham (Idaho Ct. App. 2021).
State v. Brian Edward Hirschi (Idaho Ct. App. 2016).
State v. Gale (Idaho Ct. App. 2025).
— Idaho Code § 20-221(3) — 2 cases
State v. Vasquez, 416 P.3d 108 (Idaho 2018). “While the Justice Reinvestment Initiative as adopted in 2014 allows for IDOC to file its own documents with the court without prosecutor approval, see Idaho Code section 20-221(3), this case presents a potential concern.”
State v. Kody Ray Gibbs, 405 P.3d 567 (Idaho 2017). “I.C. § 20-221; I.C. § 20-222(2). However, a review of the transcript in 11 the present case shows no discussion, analysis, or argument on the modification of the terms of probation.”
— Idaho Code § 20-221(8) — 1 case
State v. Kody Ray Gibbs, 405 P.3d 567 (Idaho 2017). “I.C. § 20-221; I.C. § 20-222(2). However, a review of the transcript in 11 the present case shows no discussion, analysis, or argument on the modification of the terms of probation.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.