State of Idaho v. Alexander Michael Pecuniahines

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51400

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 13, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ALEXANDER MICHAEL PECUNIA- ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
HINES, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. George A. Southworth, Senior District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for felony driving under the influence,
affirmed.

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

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

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

PER CURIAM
Alexander Michael Pecunia-Hines pled guilty to felony driving under the influence, Idaho
Code § 18-8005(9). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The
district court imposed a unified term of seven years with two years determinate and retained
jurisdiction. Pecunia-Hines appeals, contending that the district court should have suspended
Pecunia-Hines’ sentence and placed him on probation.
Pecunia-Hines’ claim that the district court abused its discretion when it retained
jurisdiction is now moot since he was placed on probation following the period of retained

1
jurisdiction. A case becomes moot when the issues presented are no longer live or the defendant
lacks a legally cognizable interest in the outcome. Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 481 (1982);
Bradshaw v. State, 120 Idaho 429, 432, 816 P.2d 986, 989 (1991).
Therefore, Pecunia-Hines’ judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2