State of Idaho v. Jonathan David Wyble

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51275

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 17, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JONATHAN DAVID WYBLE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Matthew J. Roker, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum
incarceration of two years, for aggravated assault with the use of a deadly weapon,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

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

PER CURIAM
The State charged Jonathon David Wyble with misdemeanor domestic violence, violation
of protective order, Idaho Code § 39-6312(1), and two counts of felony aggravated assault with
the use of a deadly weapon, I.C. §§ 18-905, 19-2520. Wyble pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor
and following a trial, a jury found Wyble guilty of one of the aggravated assault charges and not
guilty on the other count. The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years, with a
minimum period of incarceration of two years, for the felony aggravated assault with the use of a
deadly weapon enhancement conviction, and retained jurisdiction. Wyble appeals, contending that

1
his sentence is excessive. Specifically, Wyble contends the district court abused its discretion by
declining to place him on a term of probation.
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 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, Wyble’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2