State of Idaho v. Brianna Leigh Freeman

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50567

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 20, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
BRIANNA LEIGH FREEMAN, ) 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 O’Neill, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of two years, for sexual abuse of a child under sixteen,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Ben P. McGreevy,
Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Brianna Leigh Freeman pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, Idaho Code
§ 18-1506. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum period
of incarceration of two years. Freeman appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive.
Specifically, Freeman asserts that the district court abused its discretion by failing to place her on
probation so she could transfer her probation to the state of Washington.
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

1
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, Freeman’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2