State of Idaho v. Skye Marie Freitas

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 53015

STATE OF IDAHO, )

) Filed: August 18, 2026 Plaintiff-Respondent, )

) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. )

) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED SKYE MARIE FREITAS, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant. )

)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Barry McHugh, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence for felony domestic battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

________________________________________________

Before LORELLO, Judge; FLEMING, Judge;

and PETTY, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM Skye Marie Freitas pled guilty to felony domestic battery. I.C. §§ 18-903 and 18-918(2).

In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court sentenced Freitas to a unified term of six years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent Freitas to participate in the rider program. Freitas appeals, arguing that the district court should have granted her 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-

2

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).

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). 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 these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Freitas’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.