State of Idaho v. Cody Gene Anson

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50514

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 21, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CODY GENE ANSON, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and determinate sentence of two years for felony injury to
a child, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Sally J. Cooley, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and HUSKEY, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Cody Gene Anson pled guilty to felony injury to a child. I.C. § 18-1501(1). In exchange
for his guilty plea, an additional charge and an allegation that he is a persistent violator were
dismissed. The district court sentenced Anson to a determinate term of two years to be served
concurrently with other unrelated sentences. Anson appeals, arguing that his sentence is excessive
and that the district court should have 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). 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). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could
reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150,
154 (Ct. App. 2020).
We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to
relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district
court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102
Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97
(Ct. App. 1990). 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 if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to conclude that the defendant is not
a suitable candidate for probation. Id.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion.
Therefore, Anson’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2