From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Chavez

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Mar 29, 2022
No. 49090 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2022)

Opinion

49090

03-29-2022

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OCEAN ORION CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

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

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fifteen years with four years determinate for sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

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

Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge.

PER CURIAM

Ocean Orion Chavez pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen years, Idaho Code § 18-1506(b). In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fifteen years with four years determinate. Chavez appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive and the court erred by not retaining jurisdiction.

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 court's discretion also 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 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, Chavez's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Chavez

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Mar 29, 2022
No. 49090 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2022)
Case details for

State v. Chavez

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. OCEAN ORION CHAVEZ…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Mar 29, 2022

Citations

No. 49090 (Idaho Ct. App. Mar. 29, 2022)