1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44650

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DARRELL WILLIAM NANCE,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 443

Filed: April 21, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Boundary County. Hon. Barbara A. Buchanan, District Judge. 

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

period of confinement of two and one-half years, for possession of a controlled 

substance; concurrent sentence of two and one-half years determinate for 

attempted destruction of evidence, 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 MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Darrell William Nance pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, 

Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1) and one count of attempted destruction of evidence, I.C. § 18-2603. 

The district court sentenced Nance to a unified sentence of seven years with two and one-half 

years determinate for possession of a controlled substance charge and a concurrent term of two 

and one-half years determinate for attempted destruction of evidence charge. Nance appeals

asserting that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and 

declining to order probation or retain jurisdiction.
2

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). 

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. Applying these 

standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court 

abused its discretion.

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