State of Idaho v. Chad Leon Willingham

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50264

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 22, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHAD LEON WILLINGHAM, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of life with a minimum period of
confinement of twenty-five years for lewd conduct with child under sixteen,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Chad Leon Willingham was found guilty of lewd conduct with child under sixteen, Idaho
Code § 18-1508. The district court imposed a sentence of life with twenty-five years determinate.
Willingham filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence which the district
court denied.1 Willingham appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion when it
sentenced him to life with twenty-five years determinate and by declining to retain jurisdiction.

1
The denial of the Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion is not challenged in this 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). 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).
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.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion in sentencing or in refusing to retain jurisdiction. Therefore,
Willingham’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2