1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 45728

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

GARY FRANCES HALLER,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Filed: October 18, 2018

Karel A. Lehrman, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Deborah A. Bail, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum 

period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled 

substance, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 

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; HUSKEY, Judge;

and LORELLO, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM 

Gary Frances Haller pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. Idaho Code 

§ 37-2732(c). The district court sentenced Haller to a unified term of seven years with two years 

determinate. Haller appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an 

excessive sentence and by not giving Haller the opportunity to participate in the retained 

jurisdiction program.

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 
2

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.

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. 

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.

Therefore, Haller’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.