State of Idaho v. Daniel Peter Floyd

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52855

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 18, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DANIEL PETER FLOYD, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Boundary County. Hon. Susie Jensen, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate term of five years for unlawful possession
of destructive devices or bombs, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jacob L. Westerfield, 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; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Daniel Peter Floyd pled guilty to unlawful possession of destructive devices or bombs,
Idaho Code § 18-3319. In exchange for his guilty plea, the State agreed not to file additional
charges. The district court sentenced Floyd to a determinate term of five years. Floyd filed an
Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied.1 Floyd appeals, arguing that the
district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence. Specifically, Floyd argues
the district court should have placed him on probation or given him a lesser sentence.

1
On appeal, Floyd does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35 motion for
reduction of sentence.

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, Floyd’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2