State of Idaho v. Francisco Javier Gonzalezlizzaraga

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50461

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: November 22, 2023
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
FRANCISCO JAVIER GONZALEZ- ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
LIZZARAGA, ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada
County. Hon. Michael J. Reardon, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years, for aggravated battery, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner,
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
Francisco Javier Gonzalez-Lizzaraga pled guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code
§§ 18-903(b), 18-907(1)(b). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court imposed a unified sentence of ten years with two years determinate and found
no “reasonable benefit in a retained jurisdiction.” Gonzalez-Lizzaraga appeals, contending that
the district court abused its discretion by not placing him on retained jurisdiction.
The primary purpose of the retained jurisdiction program is to enable the trial court to
obtain additional information regarding the defendant’s rehabilitative potential and suitability for

1
probation, and probation is the ultimate objective of a defendant who is on retained jurisdiction.
State v. Chapel, 107 Idaho 193, 687 P.2d 583 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565,
567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). There can be no abuse of discretion in a trial court’s
refusal to retain jurisdiction if the court already has sufficient information upon which to
conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. State v. Beebe, 113 Idaho
977, 979, 751 P.2d 673, 675 (Ct. App. 1988); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. Based
upon the information that was before the district court at the time of sentencing, we hold that the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it declined to retain jurisdiction.
Therefore, Gonzalez-Lizzaraga’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

2