State of Idaho v. Bonham Christian Kimmell

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51249

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: October 15, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED BONHAM CHRISTIAN KIMMELL, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years with a minimum period of confinement of two years for stalking in the first degree, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy, 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; LORELLO, Judge; and TRIBE, Judge ________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Bonham Christian Kimmell pled guilty to stalking in the first degree, Idaho Code § 18- 7905. In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed a unified term of five years with two years determinate. Kimmell appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by failing to retain jurisdiction when it imposed his sentence. 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.

1 State v. Chapel, 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). 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. Therefore, Kimmell’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.