State of Idaho v. Frank Thomas Leming, Jr

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 25, 2026
• Docket: 52920
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

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STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: March 25, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED FRANK THOMAS LEMING, JR., ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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