State of Idaho v. Timothy Joshua Miller

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50985

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: April 25, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
TIMOTHY JOSHUA MILLER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Third Judicial District, State of Idaho, Canyon
County. Hon. Brent L. Whiting, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and sentence of seven years with three years determinate
for domestic battery with traumatic injury, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, 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
In 2015, Timothy Joshua Miller pled guilty to domestic battery with traumatic injury, Idaho
Code §§ 18-903(a), 18-908(2) (Docket No. 43192). The district court sentenced him to seven
years with three years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Miller appealed and this Court
affirmed the district court’s judgment of conviction and sentence. State v. Miller, Docket No.
43192 (Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2015) (unpublished). Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the
district court suspended execution of the sentence and placed Miller on probation for four years.
Miller twice admitted to violating his probation and the district court extended his term of
probation. Thereafter, Miller absconded from supervision. The district court found Miller had
willfully violated his probation and revoked Miller’s probation, reimposed his previously

1
suspended sentence, and placed Miller on another period of retained jurisdiction. Miller appeals,
asserting that the district court erred by placing him on a retained jurisdiction rather than returning
him to 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 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). The
record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and
determined that probation/retaining jurisdiction 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, Miller’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2