51390 State v. Zafiu

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51389 & 51390

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 9, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
VILMOS ZAFIU, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Michael Dean, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and concurrent jail sentences for two counts of second
degree stalking in Docket No. 51389, affirmed; judgment of conviction and
consecutive unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration
of four years for first degree stalking in Docket No. 51390, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
This appeal involves two consolidated cases. In Docket No. 51389, Vilmos Zafiu was
found guilty of two counts of misdemeanor stalking in the second degree, Idaho Code § 18-7906.
The district court imposed concurrent sentences of 365 days in county jail, with credit for 232
days. In Docket No. 51390, Zafiu pled guilty to felony stalking in the first degree, I.C. § 18-7905.1

1
Zafiu was also found guilty of two additional counts of misdemeanor stalking; those
convictions are not at issue in this appeal.
1
The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration
of four years, to run consecutively to the sentences in Docket No. 51389. In exchange for his
guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. Zafiu appeals, contending that his sentences are
excessive.
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/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, Zafiu’s judgments of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2