51386 State v. Nelson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 51385/51386

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 20, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ANDREW DAVID NELSON, ) 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. Derrick J. O’Neill, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years with a minimum period
of confinement of two years for unlawful possession of a firearm, affirmed;
judgment of conviction and concurrent, unified sentence of twelve years with a
minimum period of confinement of three years for possession of a controlled
substance and unlawful possession of a firearm, 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
In Docket No. 51385, Andrew David Nelson pled guilty to unlawful possession of a
firearm, Idaho Code § 18-3316. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed
including an allegation that he was a persistent violator. The district court imposed a unified term
of five years with two years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Nelson on probation
for a period of five years. In Docket No. 51386, Nelson pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance and unlawful possession of a firearm, I.C. §§ 37-2732(c), 18-3316. The district court

1
imposed an aggregate term of twelve years with three years determinate to run concurrently with
his sentence in Docket No. 51385. The district court also revoked Nelson’s probation in Docket
No. 51385. Nelson asserts that the district court abused its discretion by failing to retain
jurisdiction.
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); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565,
567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). 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. Therefore, Nelson’s judgments of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2