State of Idaho v. Frank Thomas Leming, Jr

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52920

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 25, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
FRANK THOMAS LEMING, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Valley
County. Hon. Jason D. Scott, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of three and one-half years, for felony injury to a child, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before TRIBE, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Frank Thomas Leming, Jr. pled guilty to an amended charge of felony injury to a child,
Idaho Code § 18-1501(1). The district court sentenced Leming to a unified term of ten years, with
a minimum period of confinement of three and one-half years. Leming appeals, arguing that his
sentence is excessive. Specifically, Leming contends that the district court should have placed
him on probation, retained jurisdiction, or imposed a lesser sentence.
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);

1
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. The record in this case
shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that
probation and/or 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, Leming’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2