State v. Eric Christopher Nasker

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 44027/44028

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 759 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: October 31, 2016 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) ERIC CHRISTOPHER NASKER, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and order retaining jurisdiction, affirmed

Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim 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 GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM In docket number 44027, Eric Christopher Nasker pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). In docket number 44028, Nasker pled guilty to grand theft by possession of stolen property, I.C. § 18-2403(4), -2407(1), -2409. At a consolidated sentencing hearing, the district court imposed concurrent unified sentences of six years with two years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Nasker appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by retaining jurisdiction rather than immediately placing him 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, 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, Nasker’s judgment of conviction and order retaining jurisdiction are affirmed.