State of Idaho v. Franklin Eldrick Allbee

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50552

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 13, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
FRANKLIN ELDRICK ALLBEE, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bonner
County. Hon. Lamont C. Berecz, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of eight years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two years, for felony driving under the influence (found guilty
of two or more violations within ten years), affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Amy J. Lavin, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; HUSKEY, Judge
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Franklin Eldrick Allbee pled guilty to felony driving under the influence (found guilty of
two or more violations within ten years), Idaho Code § 18-8005(6). In exchange for his guilty
plea, additional charges were dismissed. Both the State and Allbee recommended the district court
impose a unified eight-year sentence, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years, and
suspend the sentence for probation. The district court imposed a unified eight-year sentence, with
a minimum period of incarceration of two years. The court declined to suspend the sentence and

1
place Allbee on probation. Allbee appeals, contending that the district court should have granted
probation.
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). That discretion includes
the trial court’s decision regarding whether a defendant should be placed on probation. I.C. § 19-
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, Allbee’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2