State of Idaho v. Christopher Jacob Martinez

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51044

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: October 11, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
CHRISTOPHER JACOB MARTINEZ, ) 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. Lynn G. Norton, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance and a
consecutive, unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement
of one year, for eluding a peace officer, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Christopher Jacob Martinez pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho Code
§ 37-2732(c)(1) and eluding a peace officer, I.C. § 49-1404(2).1 In exchange for his guilty pleas,
additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years,
with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for possession of a controlled substance and

1
Martinez also pled guilty to misdemeanor driving under the influence, I.C. § 18-8004.
Martinez does not challenge this conviction or sentence on appeal.

1
a consecutive, unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one year,
for eluding a peace officer. Martinez appeals, arguing the district court abused its discretion by
imposing excessive sentences, without retaining jurisdiction.
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).
The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain
additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and
is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App.
2005). Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. Id. There can be no abuse of
discretion in declining to retain jurisdiction if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to
conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. Id. The goal of probation is
to foster the probationer’s rehabilitation while protecting public safety. State v. Cheatham, 159
Idaho 856, 858, 367 P.3d 251, 253 (Ct. App. 2016). A decision to deny probation will not be
deemed an abuse of discretion if it is consistent with the criteria articulated in I.C. § 19-2521.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Martinez‘s judgment of conviction and
sentences are affirmed.

2