State of Idaho v. Chalet Marie Manley

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50117

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: May 1, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHALET MARIE MANLEY, ) 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. Steven J. Hippler, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years with a minimum period
of confinement of two years for possession, introduction, or removal of certain
articles into or from correctional facilities, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and BRAILSFORD, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Chalet Marie Manley pled guilty to possession, introduction, or removal of certain
articles into or from correctional facilities, Idaho Code §§ 18-2510(3), 19-2520. The district
court imposed a unified sentence of five years with two years determinate. Manley appeals,
contending that her sentence is excessive, particularly with regard to the decision of the district
court to not retain 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).
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); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650
P.2d at 709. 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, Manley’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2