State of Idaho v. Kade Michael Jones

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52048

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 18, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KADE MICHAEL JONES, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Bruce L. Pickett, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of twelve years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for aggravated battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Kade Michael Jones entered an Alford1 plea to aggravated battery. I.C. § 18-907. In
exchange for his guilty plea, the State dismissed a great bodily harm sentence enhancement. The
district court sentenced Jones to a unified term of twelve years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two years. Jones appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive and that the district
court should have retained jurisdiction or placed him on probation.

1
See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970).

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). 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).
The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain
additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and
is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005).
Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. Id. There can be no abuse of discretion in
declining to retain jurisdiction if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to conclude that
the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. Id. The goal of probation is to foster the
probationer’s rehabilitation while protecting public safety. State v. Cheatham, 159 Idaho 856, 858,
367 P.3d 251, 253 (Ct. App. 2016). A decision to deny probation will not be deemed an abuse of
discretion if it is consistent with the criteria articulated in I.C. § 19-2521.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Jones’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2