State of Idaho v. Skyler Azhmurat Burck

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50792

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 15, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SKYLER AZHMURAT BURCK, ) 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. James Cawthon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years with a minimum period
of confinement of three years for burglary, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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
Skyler Azhmurat Burck pled guilty to burglary and stalking in the second degree, Idaho
Code §§ 18-1401, 18-7906. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years with three years determinate for
burglary and awarded time served for stalking in the second degree. Burck appeals, contending
that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and that the district
court should have withheld judgment and placed Burck on probation or, in the alternative,
retained jurisdiction.

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). 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, Burck’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2