State v. Aerrial Luna ( 2016 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
    Docket No. 44251
    STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 778
    )
    Plaintiff-Respondent,                    )   Filed: November 16, 2016
    )
    v.                                               )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
    )
    AERRIAL LUNA,                                    )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge.
    Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period
    of confinement of two years, for felony burglary, affirmed.
    Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy,
    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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;
    and HUSKEY, Judge
    ________________________________________________
    PER CURIAM
    Aerrial Luna pled guilty to felony burglary, 
    Idaho Code § 18-1401
    . The district court
    imposed a unified sentence of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years,
    suspended the sentence and placed Luna on probation. Luna subsequently admitted to two
    reports of probation violations, and the district court revoked probation and executed the
    underlying sentence. Luna appeals, contending that the district court erred in failing to retain
    jurisdiction.
    The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the trial court to
    obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for
    1
    probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction.
    State v. Chapel, 
    107 Idaho 193
    , 
    687 P.2d 583
     (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 
    103 Idaho 565
    ,
    567, 
    650 P.2d 707
    , 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s
    refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to
    conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. State v. Beebe, 
    113 Idaho 977
    , 979, 
    751 P.2d 673
    , 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based
    upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the
    district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction in this case.
    Therefore, Luna’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.
    2
    

Document Info

Filed Date: 11/16/2016

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021