State of Idaho v. Aelita Sophia Karmen

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 52305

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: March 17, 2026
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
AELITA SOPHIA KARMEN, ) 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. Darla Williamson, Senior District Judge.

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

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy
Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Raúl R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kacey L. Jones, Deputy Attorney
General, Boise, for respondent.
________________________________________________

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

PER CURIAM
Aelita Sophia Karmen was found guilty of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, Idaho
Code §§ 18-901(b), 18-905(a), 19-2520. The district court imposed a unified term of ten years
with two years determinate and retained jurisdiction. Karmen appeals, contending that his1
sentence is excessive, and that the district court should have “placed him on probation or
alternatively, imposed a more lenient indeterminate term of imprisonment.”

1
Aelita Sophia Karmen was born a biological male with the name Cameron Freeman, but later
legally changed his name to Aelita Sophia Karmen and began using she/her pronouns. However, he
now prefers to use he/him pronouns.
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). 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 primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain
additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and
is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005).
Probation is the ultimate goal of retained jurisdiction. Id. The goal of probation is to foster the
probationer’s rehabilitation while protecting public safety. State v. Cheatham, 159 Idaho 856, 858,
367 P.3d 251, 253 (Ct. App. 2016). A decision to deny probation will not be deemed an abuse of
discretion if it is consistent with the criteria articulated in I.C. § 19-2521. The record in this case
shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that
probation 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, Karmen’s judgment of conviction and sentence
are affirmed.

2