State of Idaho v. Mathieu Richard Beers

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50232

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 7, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
MATHIEU RICHARD BEERS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Caribou
County. Hon. Mitchell W. Brown, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for sexual battery of a minor sixteen or seventeen
years of age, affirmed.

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

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Mathieu Richard Beers was found guilty of sexual battery of a minor sixteen or seventeen
years of age. I.C. § 18-1508A(1)(c). The district court sentenced Beers to a unified term of ten
years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. Beers filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which
the district court denied. Beers appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district
court should have placed him on probation or retained 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

1
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. § 18-2601(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 or retaining jurisdiction 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, Beers’ judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

2