Filed Date: 11/21/2017
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 45126 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 648 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: November 21, 2017 ) v. ) Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk ) MICHAEL A. NIETO, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY ) Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of four years, for felony driving under the influence of alcohol, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Michael A. Nieto pled guilty to felony driving under the influence of alcohol,Idaho Code §§ 18-8004
(1)(a), 18-8005(3). The district court imposed a ten-year sentence, with a minimum period of confinement of four years. Nieto appeals, contending that the district court erred in failing to retain jurisdiction and that the sentence is excessive. 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 probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction. 1 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. 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); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Nieto’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2