Idaho Cases August 03, 2021: State v. Cox

Case Description

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. James S. Cawthon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twenty-eight years with three years determinate for possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, affirmed .

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before HUSKEY, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Justin Gene Cox pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, Idaho Code § 37-2732(a). The district court sentenced Cox to a unified term of twenty-eight years with three years determinate. Cox appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by 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, 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.