Court Opinion

ID: 3176513
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-02-10 21:23:22.193408+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:25.448078
License: Public Domain

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

                                        Docket No. 43360

STATE OF IDAHO,                                  )   2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 382
                                                 )
       Plaintiff-Respondent,                     )   Filed: February 10, 2016
                                                 )
v.                                               )   Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
                                                 )
JADEAN BINGHAM,                                  )   THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
                                                 )   OPINION AND SHALL NOT
       Defendant-Appellant.                      )   BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
                                                 )

       Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
       Minidoka County. Hon. Michael R. Crabtree, District Judge.

       Judgment of conviction and order retaining jurisdiction, affirmed.

       Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy
       Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

       Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney
       General, Boise, for respondent.
                 ________________________________________________

                        Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
                                   and HUSKEY, Judge
                    ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
       Jadean Bingham pled guilty to burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401 and possession of a
controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1).       The district court imposed concurrent unified
sentences of seven years with two years determinate, and retained jurisdiction. Bingham appeals
asserting that the district court abused its discretion by retaining jurisdiction rather than placing
her on probation.
       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,

                                                 1
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.
       Therefore, Bingham’s judgment of conviction and order retaining jurisdiction are
affirmed.

                                                   2