Idaho Cases January 20, 2022: State v. Lira

Case Description

1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Thomas W. Whitney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years with four years determinate for aggravated battery and consecutive sentence of five years with two years determinate for aggravated assault, affirmed .

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

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

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

PER CURIAM.

Alexis Lira pled guilty to one count of aggravated battery, Idaho Code § 18-907 and one count of aggravated assault, I.C. § 18-905. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed consecutive unified terms of fifteen years with four years determinate for aggravated battery, and five years with two years determinate for aggravated assault. Lira appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by declining to retain jurisdiction.

2

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. The judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.