State of Idaho v. Juan Anthony Escobedo Irwin

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50943

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: August 27, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JUAN ANTHONY ESCOBEDO IRWIN, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Bingham County. Hon. Alan C. Stephens, Senior District Judge. Hon. Darren B.
Simpson, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of six years with a minimum period
of confinement of three years for possession of a controlled substance and
concurrent term of six months for domestic battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, 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 LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
Juan Anthony Escobedo Irwin pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, Idaho
Code § 37-2732(c)(1); and misdemeanor domestic battery, I.C. § 18-918(3)(b). In exchange for
his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. Irwin failed to schedule his PSI interview and
failed to appear for his GAIN assessment and two of his sentencing hearings. Subsequently, the
district court imposed a sentence of six years with three years determinate for possession of a
controlled substance, a concurrent term of six months for misdemeanor domestic battery, and
retained jurisdiction. Irwin appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by

1
imposing an excessive sentence, either in terms of the length of the sentence or by retaining
jurisdiction rather than suspending his sentence and placing him on probation.1
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). 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).
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Irwin’s judgment of conviction and sentence are
affirmed.

1
By the time this case was submitted for decision, Irwin had completed his period of retained
jurisdiction and was placed on a period of probation.
2