Skip to main content

Idaho Cases October 30, 2023: State v. Goin

Up to Idaho Cases

Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
Date: Oct. 30, 2023

Case Description

1

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent,
v.
JOSEPH STERLING GOIN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 50346

Court of Appeals of Idaho

October 30, 2023

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon County. Hon. Andrea L. Courtney, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of five years with a minimum period of confinement of four years for two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm; consecutive, unified sentence of seven years with a minimum period of confinement of three years for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed .

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge

PER CURIAM

Joseph Sterling Goin pled guilty to two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm, Idaho Code § 18-3316, and possession of a controlled substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years with four years determinate for each of the firearm charges to run concurrently with each other and a consecutive unified term of seven years with three years determinate for possession of a controlled substance. Goin appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing excessive sentences, specifically by ordering the sentence on the possession

2

charge to run consecutively to the sentences for the firearm convictions and 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.

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, 101415 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); Toohill , 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs , 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Goin's judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.