State of Idaho v. Dagon Westley Williams

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52661

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 13, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAGON WESTLEY WILLIAMS, ) 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. Peter G. Barton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for burglary, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Dagon Westley Williams was found guilty of burglary and petit theft, Idaho Code §§ 18-
1401, 18-2403(1), 18-2407(2), 18-2409. Williams admitted to being a persistent violator, I.C.
§ 19-2514. At the sentencing hearing, Williams requested a retained jurisdiction with an
underlying sentence of five years with two years determinate. The district court imposed a unified
sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, for burglary and credit
for time served for petit theft. Williams appeals, contending that the district court abused its
discretion when it imposed his sentence without retaining 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

1
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.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Williams’ judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2