State of Idaho v. Joshua Price Wasserburger

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 51132

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: December 31, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
JOSHUA PRICE WASSERBURGER, ) 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. Cynthia Yee-Wallace, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified term of seven years, with a minimum period of
confinement of two years, for felony possession of a controlled substance, affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly A. Coster, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kale D. Gans, Deputy Attorney General,
Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LORELLO, Judge
and TRIBE, Judge
________________________________________________
PER CURIAM
Joshua Price Wasserburger pled guilty to felony possession of a controlled substance.
Idaho Code § 37-2732(c). In exchange for his guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed.
The district court sentenced Wasserburger to a unified term of seven years, with a minimum period
of confinement of two years. Wasserburger filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the

1
district court denied.1 Wasserburger appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion
by failing to place him on 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 was not appropriate.
Therefore, Wasserburger’s judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.

1
On appeal, Wasserburger does not challenge the district court’s denial of his Rule 35
motion for reduction of his sentence.

2