State of Idaho v. Timothy Dwayne Burgett

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51403

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 6, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TIMOTHY DWAYNE BURGETT, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Jonathan Medema, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified term of four years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two years, for felony intimidating a witness, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Timothy Dwayne Burgett pled guilty to felony intimidating a witness. Idaho Code § 18-
2604.1 In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court
sentenced Burgett to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two
years, and retained jurisdiction. Burgett appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion
by failing to place him on probation.

1
Burgett also pled guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence. He does not challenge this
conviction or sentence on appeal.

1
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). That discretion includes
the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation and whether
to retain jurisdiction. I.C. § 19-2601(3), (4). State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635
(Ct. App. 2002); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The
record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and
determined that probation was not appropriate.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Burgett’s judgment of conviction and sentence,
are affirmed.

2