State of Idaho v. David Paul Mildner

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 50231

STATE OF IDAHO, )
) Filed: February 6, 2024
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk
v. )
) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED
DAVID PAUL MILDNER, ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT
) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Defendant-Appellant. )
)

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho,
Kootenai County. Hon. John T. Mitchell, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum
period of incarceration of three years, for possession of a controlled substance,
affirmed.

Erik R. Lehtinen, State Appellate Public Defender; Emily M. Joyce, 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; HUSKEY, Judge;
and LORELLO, Judge
________________________________________________

PER CURIAM
David Paul Mildner pled guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine,
Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed.
The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with a minimum period of
incarceration of three years. Following a period of retained jurisdiction, the district court
relinquished jurisdiction. Mildner appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion
by imposing an excessive sentence and by relinquishing jurisdiction and not placing Mildner 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). We note that the decision
to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant
is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned on appeal
absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); 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.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that
the district court abused its discretion in imposing sentence or by not placing Mildner on probation
following his period of retained jurisdiction. Therefore, Mildner’s judgment of conviction and
sentence are affirmed.

2