State v. Jeffrey Charles Pierce

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44317

STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 331 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: January 25, 2017 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) JEFFREY CHARLES PIERCE, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant.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. Melissa Moody, District Judge.

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

Eric D. Fredericksen, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; MELANSON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Jeffrey Charles Pierce pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with three years determinate. Pierce appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive. 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 decision whether to retain jurisdiction is also a matter within the sound discretion of the district court. 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, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005). There can be no abuse of discretion if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. Id. Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Pierce’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.