State v. Bryan

• Decision Date: 29 November 2022
• Docket Number: 49413
• Parties: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. REBECCA ROSE BRYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Court of Appeals

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. REBECCA ROSE BRYAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 49413

Court of Appeals of Idaho

November 29, 2022

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

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 sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for delivery of a controlled substance where a child is present, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Kiley A. Heffner, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Rebecca Rose Bryan pled guilty to delivery of a controlled substance where a child is present, Idaho Code § 37-2737A. In exchange for her guilty plea, an additional charge was dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of incarceration of two years. Bryan appeals, contending that her sentence is excessive; specifically that the district court abused its discretion by denying 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, Bryan's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.