State of Idaho v. Rodney Christopher Bradley

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51846

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 1, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
RODNEY CHRISTOPHER BRADLEY, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. Scott Wayman, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentences of twenty-five years with
a minimum period of confinement of ten years for two counts of aggravated driving
while 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 TRIBE Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Rodney Christopher Bradley was found guilty of two counts of aggravated driving while
under the influence, Idaho Code § 18-8006, and admitted to being a persistent violator, I.C. § 19-
2514. The district court imposed concurrent, unified terms of twenty-five years with ten years
determinate. Bradley appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing
excessive sentences and by failing 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-

1
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); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d
at 709. 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 in sentencing or by declining to retain jurisdiction.
Therefore, Bradley’s judgment of conviction and sentences are affirmed.

2