Court Opinion

ID: 4305774
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-08-21 18:06:29.767523+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:27.915254
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                         Docket No. 45790

STATE OF IDAHO,                                   )
                                                  )   Filed: August 21, 2018
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                      )
                                                  )   Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
v.                                                )
                                                  )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KALEB WADE NICKERSON,                             )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
                                                  )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
       Defendant-Appellant.                       )
                                                  )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
       County. Hon. Michael J. Reardon, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
       period of confinement of three years, for robbery, affirmed.

       Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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
       Kaleb Wade Nickerson pled guilty to robbery, Idaho Code §§ 18-6502, 18-6502, 20-509.
In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a
unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years.
Nickerson appeals, contending that the district court erred in failing to retain jurisdiction.
       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,

                                                  1
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.
        Therefore, Nickerson’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

                                                   2