State v. Bobby Wayne Palmer

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42379

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 306 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 13, 2015 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) BOBBY WAYNE PALMER, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY )

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven year, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Bobby Wayne Palmer pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37- 2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed and the state agreed not to pursue an allegation that Palmer was a persistent violator. The district court sentenced Palmer to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years. Palmer appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district court erred in refusing to retain jurisdiction.

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). Palmer also argues that the district court erred in refusing to retain jurisdiction. The decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 377, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that retained jurisdiction was not appropriate. Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Palmer’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.