From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Paladini

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Dec 1, 2022
No. 49286 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022)

Opinion

49286

12-01-2022

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARLOS G. PALADINI, Defendant-Appellant.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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UNPUBLISHED OPINION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 Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Twin Falls County. Hon. Rosemary Emory, District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of fourteen years with five years determinate for perjury, affirmed.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, 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

Carlos G. Paladini was found guilty of perjury, Idaho Code § 18-5401. The district court imposed a unified sentence of fourteen years with five years determinate. Paladini appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in failing to retain 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, 101415 (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 1 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, Paladini's judgment of conviction and sentence are affirmed. 2


Summaries of

State v. Paladini

Court of Appeals of Idaho
Dec 1, 2022
No. 49286 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022)
Case details for

State v. Paladini

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CARLOS G. PALADINI…

Court:Court of Appeals of Idaho

Date published: Dec 1, 2022

Citations

No. 49286 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 1, 2022)