50603 State v. Scott

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50601 & 50603

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 22, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
KRISTINE ANN SCOTT, ) 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. Samuel Hoagland, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and consecutive, unified sentences of five years, with
minimum periods of confinement of one year, for two counts of possession of a
controlled substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
In these consolidated cases, Kristine Ann Scott pled guilty to two counts of possession of
a controlled substance. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1)(F). In exchange for her guilty plea, additional charges
were dismissed. The district court sentenced Scott to consecutive, unified terms of five years, with
minimum periods of confinement of one year. Scott appeals, arguing that her sentences are
excessive and that the district court should have placed her on probation or 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). 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).
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, Scott’s judgments of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2