50771 State v. French

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket Nos. 50770 & 50771

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: January 2, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
SEAN MICHAEL FRENCH, ) 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. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge.

Judgments of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled substance and
concurrent unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of
three years, for burglary, 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 GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
In these consolidated cases, Sean Michael French pled guilty to possession of a controlled
substance, I.C. § 37-2732(c), and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. In exchange for his guilty pleas,
additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced French to a unified term of seven
years, with a minimum period of confinement of three years, for possession of a controlled
substance and a concurrent unified term of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of
three years, for burglary. French filed I.C.R. 35 motions for reduction of his sentences, which the

1
district court denied. French appeals, arguing that his sentences are excessive and that the district
court should have granted probation or 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
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, French’s judgments of conviction and sentences
are affirmed.

2