State of Idaho v. Ray Nicholas Bruinsma

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52854

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: July 6, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED RAY NICHOLAS BRUINSMA, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Gene A. Petty, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and suspended sentence for disturbing the peace, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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; LORELLO, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge Pro Tem ________________________________________________ PER CURIAM Ray Nicholas Bruinsma pled guilty to an amended charge of disturbing the peace. I.C. § 18-6409. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court sentenced Bruinsma to ninety days in jail but suspended the sentence and placed him on probation for one year of supervised probation and one year of unsupervised probation. Bruinsma appeals, arguing that the district court erred by not granting him a withheld judgment. 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-

1 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). After a person has been convicted of a crime, a district court may, in its discretion, withhold judgment. I.C. § 19-2601(3); State v. Edghill, 134 Idaho 218, 219, 999 P.2d 255, 256 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Trejo, 132 Idaho 872, 880, 979 P.2d 1230, 1238 (Ct. App. 1999). Idaho Misdemeanor Rule 10(b) provides that no second or subsequent withheld judgment may be granted unless the trial court finds extraordinary circumstance exist. Refusal to grant a withheld judgment will not be deemed an abuse of discretion if the trial court has sufficient information to determine that a withheld judgment would be inappropriate. State v. Geier, 109 Idaho 963, 965, 712 P.2d 664, 666 (Ct. App. 1985). Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Bruinsma’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.