STATE OF IDAHO v. NICHOLAS ADAM MORAN, AKA NICHOLAS ADAM CHIRRICK

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51508

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: September 16, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
NICHOLAS ADAM MORAN, aka ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
NICHOLAS ADAM CHIRRICK, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of five years, for aggravated battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before HUSKEY, Judge; LORELLO, Judge;
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Nicholas Adam Moran pled guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code § 18-
903(a), -901(7)(a). The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of five years. Moran appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive.
Specifically, Moran asserts the district court should have imposed a lesser sentence or retained
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

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 and whether
to retain jurisdiction. 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). 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). 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).
The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information
before it and determined that retaining jurisdiction was not appropriate and we cannot say that the
district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence. Therefore, Moran’s judgment of
conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2