State of Idaho v. Stephanie Marie Lambert

• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals
• Decided: April 26, 2024
• Docket: 51006
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51006

STATE OF IDAHO, ) ) Filed: April 26, 2024 Plaintiff-Respondent, ) ) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk v. ) ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED STEPHANIE MARIE LAMBERT, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY Defendant-Appellant.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. Derrick J. O’Neill, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, 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 Stephanie Marie Lambert pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance. I.C. § 37- 2732(c). The district court sentenced Lambert to a unified term of four years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years. The district court retained jurisdiction and sent Lambert to participate in the rider program. Lambert filed an I.C.R. 35 motion, which the district court denied. Lambert appeals, arguing that the district court erred by not granting her a withheld judgment and probation and that her sentence is excessive.

1 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. Trejo, 132 Idaho 872, 880, 979 P.2d 1230, 1238 (Ct. App. 1999). The 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. Edghill, 134 Idaho 218, 219, 999 P.2d 255, 256 (Ct. App. 2000). Factors which bear on the imposition of sentence also apply in review of the discretionary decision to withhold judgment. State v. Geier, 109 Idaho 963, 965, 712 P.2d 664, 666 (Ct. App. 1985). The denial of a withheld judgment may be justified by the nature of the crime. Trejo, 132 Idaho at 880, 979 P.2d at 1238. 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). That discretion includes the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation. I.C. § 18-2601(3), (4). State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation 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, Lambert’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.