eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 State Courts
 Idaho Court of Appeals
 2016-05

State v. David Mathew Masner ( 2016 )


Menu:
 
  •                IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
Docket No. 43788
STATE OF IDAHO,                                )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 552
)
Plaintiff-Respondent,                   )   Filed: May 26, 2016
)
v.                                             )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
)
DAVID MATHEW MASNER,                           )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
)   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
Defendant-Appellant.                    )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Michael J. Reardon, District Judge.
Order denying motion to terminate or modify the terms of probation, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
David Mathew Masner pled guilty to felony driving under the influence. I.C. §§ 18-8004
and 18-8005(6).1 The district court sentenced Masner to a unified term of ten years, with a
minimum period of confinement of three years. However, the district court retained jurisdiction
and sent Masner to participate in the rider program. Following successful completion of his
rider, the district court suspended Masner’s sentence and placed him on probation. Masner filed
1
Masner also pled guilty to and was sentenced for misdemeanor carrying a concealed
weapon while under the influence. However, that conviction and sentence is not an issue on this
appeal.
1
a motion to terminate or modify the terms of his probation, which the district court denied.
Masner appeals.
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 the sentence are well established and
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).
A trial court is authorized to make probation subject to such terms and conditions as it
deems necessary and expedient. I.C. § 19-26014(2). The goal of probation is to foster the
defendant’s rehabilitation while protecting public safety. State v. Wardle,
    137 Idaho 808
    , 810,
    53 P.3d 1227
    , 1229 (Ct. App. 2002).        Although trial courts have broad discretion in the
imposition of restrictive terms, the conditions of probation must be reasonably related to the
rehabilitative and public safety goals of probation.
    Id. The reasonableness 
    of the imposition of
probation terms is a question of law over which appellate courts exercise free review.
    Id. Applying these 
    standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, the district court’s order denying Masner’s
motion to terminate or modify the terms of his probation is affirmed.
2