1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39563

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

CLINTON IRVIN WAGEMAN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 699

Filed: October 31, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 

OPINION AND SHALL NOT 

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada

County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and withheld judgment and imposing unified sentence 

of ten years, with six years determinate, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jordan E. Taylor, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Clinton Irvin Wageman pled guilty to injury to a child. Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The 

district court withheld judgment and placed Wageman on probation. Several years later, 

Wageman admitted to violating terms of the probation. The district court consequently revoked 

probation and the withheld judgment and imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with six years 

determinate. Wageman appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion by revoking 

Wageman’s withheld judgment and imposing an excessive sentence.

An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard. State v. 

Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 276, 1 P.3d 299, 304 (Ct. App. 2000). Where a sentence is not illegal, 

the appellant has the burden to show that it is unreasonable and, thus, a clear abuse of discretion. 
2

State v. Brown, 121 Idaho 385, 393, 825 P.2d 482, 490 (1992). A sentence may represent such 

an abuse of discretion if it is shown to be unreasonable upon the facts of the case. State v. Nice, 

103 Idaho 89, 90, 645 P.2d 323, 324 (1982). A sentence of confinement is reasonable if it 

appears at the time of sentencing that confinement is necessary “to accomplish the primary 

objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of the related goals of deterrence, 

rehabilitation or retribution applicable to a given case.” State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 

P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). Where an appellant contends that the sentencing court imposed 

an excessively harsh sentence, we conduct an independent review of the record, having regard 

for the nature of the offense, the character of the offender and the protection of the public 

interest. State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 772, 653 P.2d 1183, 1884 (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). 

The issue before this Court is not whether the sentence is one that we would have 

imposed, but whether the sentence is plainly excessive under any reasonable view of the facts. 

Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. If reasonable minds might differ as to whether the 

sentence is excessive, we are not free to substitute our view for that of the district court. Id. 

Having thoroughly reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused 

its discretion. Therefore, the district court’s order revoking probation and the withheld judgment 

and imposing a unified sentence of ten years, with six years determinate, is affirmed.