State of Idaho v. Joseph Sterling Goin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50346

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 30, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOSEPH STERLING GOIN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

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. Raúl 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

1
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, 1014-
15 (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.

2