1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39921

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

IAN ROBERT LANDON HERBST,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 417

Filed: March 27, 2013

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Michael E. Wetherell, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and withheld judgment and imposing consecutive 

unified sentences of ten years with two and one-half years determinate; ten years 

indeterminate; five years indeterminate; and five years indeterminate for four 

counts of burglary, affirmed.

Nevin, Benjamin, McKay & Bartlett, LLP; Robyn A. Fyffe, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Ian Robert Landon Herbst pled guilty to four counts of burglary. Idaho Code § 18-1401. 

The district court withheld judgment and placed Herbst on probation for thirty years; the district 

court also placed special conditions on Herbst’s probation. Subsequently, Herbst admitted to 

violating several terms of his probation and the district court consequently revoked Herbst’s 

withheld judgment and probation and imposed consecutive unified sentences of ten years with 

two and one-half years determinate; ten years indeterminate; five years indeterminate; and five 

years indeterminate for the four counts of burglary. Herbst appeals asserting that the district 
2

court abused its discretion by declining to retain jurisdiction and by imposing an excessive 

sentence.

A trial court’s decision whether to retain jurisdiction is, like the original sentencing 

decision, a matter committed to the trial court’s discretion. State v. Hernandez, 122 Idaho 227, 

230, 832 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ct. App. 1992). Retained jurisdiction allows the trial court an 

extended time to evaluate a defendant’s suitability for probation. State v. Vivian, 129 Idaho 375, 

379, 924 P.2d 637, 641 (Ct. App. 1996). The purpose of retaining jurisdiction after imposing a 

sentence is to afford the trial court additional time for evaluation of the defendant’s rehabilitation 

potential and suitability for probation. State v. Atwood, 122 Idaho 199, 201, 832 P.2d 1134, 

1136 (Ct. App. 1992).

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). 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.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion either by declining to retain jurisdiction or in 

sentencing. Therefore, the order revoking probation and withheld judgment and imposing 

sentence is affirmed.