State v. Orbison

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50779

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: June 6, 2025
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
ORBIE KELTON ORBISON, ) 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. Patrick J. Miller, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period
of confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Mark W. Olson, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________
TRIBE, Judge
Orbie Kelton Orbison appeals from his judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five
years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years, for possession of a
controlled substance. We affirm.
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
During a traffic stop, a Garden City police officer arrested Orbison for possession of drug
paraphernalia. Orbison’s backpack was searched incident to that arrest. The search revealed
methamphetamine and more drug paraphernalia. The State charged him with possession of a
controlled substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia.

1
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Orbison pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance
(methamphetamine). Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). The State agreed to dismiss the possession of
drug paraphernalia charge and to recommend probation. Sentencing was set for September 2022.
After pleading guilty, Orbison bonded out of jail subject to the pretrial release program.
Shortly after Orbison bonded out, the Ada County Pretrial Services Unit (PSU) began
notifying the district court that Orbison was not complying with the terms of his pretrial release.
By the time Orbison was sentenced, PSU reported that Orbison missed over twenty drug tests, had
two positive tests for amphetamines, missed scheduled meetings, and eventually stopped
contacting PSU altogether.
At the scheduled sentencing hearing in September 2022, Orbison informed the district court
that he had missed the timeframe to schedule an interview for the presentence investigation report
(PSI). The PSI report was compiled without Orbison’s participation. While the district court
admonished Orbison for his failure to comply with the PSI process, it granted Orbison’s request
to reorder the PSI. The district court rescheduled the sentencing hearing to November 2022.
During the rescheduled hearing, the State informed the district court that, due to Orbison’s failure
to comply with the conditions of his pretrial release and his failure to participate in the PSI process,
the State was no longer bound by the recommendation it made in the plea agreement. Orbison
notified the district court of the potential conflict his current appointed counsel had in representing
Orbison. The district court continued the sentencing hearing again, until December 2022, so that
conflict counsel could be appointed.
At the December 2022 sentencing hearing, Orbison left the courthouse before sentencing
could occur. The district court entered a no-bond warrant. It was later revealed that Orbison
attended the hearing that day but heard the prosecutor say that the State was no longer
recommending probation. As a result, Orbison left because he was “terrified” and “catastrophized”
his circumstances.
Sometime later, the district court granted Orbison’s motion to quash the warrant and
scheduled a voluntary appearance date in January 2023. Shortly after, Orbison requested to appear
remotely for this hearing. Orbison explained that he started a 28-day rehabilitation program and
if he left the program, even for the court appearance, he would be discharged and be required to
reapply for readmittance. Orbison also claimed that the rehabilitation facility agreed to

2
accommodate his remote court appearance. The district court once again granted Orbison’s
request.
Orbison did not appear for the January 2023 remote hearing and, according to his defense
counsel, Orbison also left the rehabilitation program. The district court entered another no-bond
warrant. Orbison later represented to the district court that he misunderstood where he was
supposed to attend the remote hearing--from the rehabilitation center or from his defense counsel’s
office.1 The warrant was served on Orbison over two months later. The district court scheduled
Orbison’s next court appearance in March 2023, but while in custody Orbison refused to come
before the court until the next day for a status conference. A sentencing date was set at the status
conference.
The sentencing hearing was finally conducted in April 2023, approximately seven months
after it was originally scheduled. By then, a new PSI report had been completed with Orbison’s
participation. The State recommended imposition of Orbison’s sentence due to several violations
of his pretrial release conditions, his multiple failures to appear for scheduled hearings, his criminal
history, his high Level of Service Inventory (LSI) score, his unstable living conditions, and his
repeated previous probation violations in other cases. Orbison requested that the district court
suspend his sentence in favor of a term of probation. However, the district court concluded that
there was a “high degree of probability [Orbison] would not be successful on probation.” The
district court noted that it could not find mitigating factors, outside of Orbison’s age, that would
justify “any basis for leniency.” In considering the length of Orbison’s sentence, the district court
commented that Orbison’s “age is the one mitigating factor that suggests the longer sentence is not
necessarily appropriate.” The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a
minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years. Orbison appeals.

1
Orbison’s alleged confusion about the location of his remote hearing is not well taken. The
record shows that Orbison previously represented to the district court that he could not leave the
treatment facility for fear of being discharged. Orbison also claimed that the treatment facility
would accommodate his remote hearing. Despite these statements, Orbison claimed he thought he
was supposed to attend the remote hearing from his defense counsel’s office.

3
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
An appellate review of a sentence is based on an abuse of discretion standard. State v.
Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 276, 1 P.3d 299, 304 (Ct. App. 2000). When a trial court’s discretionary
decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a multi-tiered inquiry to determine
whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the
boundaries of such discretion; (3) acted consistently with any legal standards applicable to the
specific choices before it; and (4) reached its decision by an exercise of reason. State v. Herrera,
164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018).
III.
ANALYSIS
Orbison argues that the district court abused its sentencing discretion because it did not
“recognize, much less consider,” mitigating factors. The State responds that the district court
properly exercised its sentencing discretion. We hold that Orbison has failed to show that the
district court abused its sentencing discretion.
Orbison contends that the district court did not recognize or consider the mitigating factors,
including accepting responsibility for his crime,2 mental health, substance abuse, willingness to
pay restitution, willingness to accept substance abuse treatment, troubled childhood, poor physical
health, and “peaceful adjustment to incarceration.” The district court had wide discretion to
consider the evidence presented and to view it in a manner the court deemed appropriate. See
State v. Garcia, 166 Idaho 661, 681, 462 P.3d 1125, 1145 (2020) (explaining district court has
discretion in weighing and determining which evidence is aggravating and which is mitigating).
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). A
sentence of confinement is reasonable if it appears at the time of sentencing that confinement is
necessary to accomplish the primary objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of

2
We note that Orbison did not appear to accept responsibility for his numerous pretrial
release violations, his failure to appear for the scheduled PSI interview, and absconding from a
sentencing hearing as soon as he learned that the State was no longer bound by the plea agreement.

4
the related goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, or retribution applicable to a given case. State v.
Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982).
The district court considered the objectives of sentencing (including the protection of
society, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution) and the mitigating and aggravating factors
pertinent to those objectives. Orbison requested he be placed on probation. The record indicates
that the district court considered multiple factors to determine the nature of Orbison’s sentence,
i.e., whether Orbison should be placed on probation or whether the sentence would be imposed.
We do not read the district court’s statement, “I don’t really find there’s a lot of other mitigating
factors in this case to justify the crime to indicate--to give this Court any basis for leniency,” as
indicating it only considered one mitigating factor (Orbison’s age) in determining the sentence.
Instead, we read the district court’s statement to indicate it considered the other mitigating factors
and none of them outweighed the aggravating factors for purposes of assessing both the nature of
the sentence (whether Orbison should be placed on probation) and the length of the sentence. The
district court’s statement further reflects that of all the factors it considered, the only mitigating
factor to which it gave much weight was Orbison’s age. It is within the district court’s sentencing
discretion to ascribe the weight to any individual aggravating or mitigating factor. Nothing in
Idaho’s precedent requires a district court to identify all aggravating and mitigating factors, the
weight it ascribes to each factor, and how it has weighed the factors against each other. This Court
declines to second guess a trial court judge’s credibility determination and weighing of the relevant
information in determining a sentence that is within the statutory guidelines. Having reviewed the
record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. The district court
identified the correct legal standards, correctly perceived sentencing as a discretionary decision,
acted within the boundaries of its discretion, and exercised reason when imposing Orbison’s
sentence. Orbison has failed to show the district court abused its sentencing discretion.

5
IV.
CONCLUSION
Orbison has failed to show the district court abused its discretion by imposing a unified
sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years, for
possession of a controlled substance. Therefore, Orbison’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.
Judge HUSKEY and Judge Pro Tem MELANSON, CONCUR.

6