University of Idaho College of Law

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/idaho_supreme_court_record_briefs/9411/thumbnail.jp

Eich v. Wilbur J. Eich and Henrietta C. Eich Revocable Appellant\u27s Reply Brief Dckt. 48160

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7821/thumbnail.jp

English

State v. Dunn Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 47677

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7833/thumbnail.jp

State v. Luna Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 47760

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7840/thumbnail.jp

State v. Cruse  Appellant\u27s Reply Brief Dckt. 47801

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7859/thumbnail.jp

State v. Gunter Appellant\u27s Reply Brief Dckt. 47890

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7870/thumbnail.jp

UIdaho Law 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law 
Not Reported Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 
2-5-2021 
State v. Thompson Appellant's Brief Dckt. 47933 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported 
Recommended Citation 
"State v. Thompson Appellant's Brief Dckt. 47933" (2021). Not Reported. 6871. 
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/6871 
This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by the Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs at 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Not Reported by an authorized administrator 
of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact annablaine@uidaho.edu. 
1
ERIC D. FREDERICKSEN
State Appellate Public Defender
I.S.B. #6555
ELIZABETH ANN ALLRED
Deputy State Appellate Public Defender
I.S.B. #7259
322 E. Front Street, Suite 570
Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone: (208) 334-2712
Fax: (208) 334-2985
E-mail: documents@sapd.state.id.us
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) NO. 47933-2020
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) ADA COUNTY NO. CR01-19-2418
v. )
)
JENNIFER LYNN THOMPSON, ) APPELLANT'S BRIEF
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
______________________________)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case
Jennifer Lynn Thompson appeals from the district court’s Judgment of Conviction and
Commitment.  Ms. Thompson was sentenced to a unified sentence of seven years, with one year
fixed, following her conviction for possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine.  She
asserts that the district court abused its discretion because in light of the evidence, including the
mitigating factors present in her case, the ultimate sentencing conclusion was unreasonable.
Additionally, she asserts that the district court abused its discretion when it denied her Rule 35
motion in light of the new or additional information provided in support of the motion.
Electronically Filed
2/5/2021 9:15 AM
Idaho Supreme Court
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk of the Court
By: Murriah Clifton, Deputy Clerk
2
Statement of the Facts & Course of Proceedings
Following a traffic stop, police located a pipe, with methamphetamine residue, and
marijuana in or near Ms. Thompson’s purse.  (PSI, p.70.)1  Ms. Thompson admitted that she was
a marijuana user and that a jar containing marijuana belonged to her; however, she adamantly
denied that the methamphetamine pipe belonged to her—asserting that she merely found the coin
purse containing the pipe outside of bars shortly prior to the search.  (PSI, p.14.)  On February 4,
2019, a Felony Information was filed charging Ms. Thompson with possession of a controlled
substance, methamphetamine; possession of a controlled substance, marijuana; and possession of
paraphernalia.  (R., pp.19-20.)
Ms. Thompson entered not guilty pleas and the case proceeded to trial.  (R., pp.23-24, 34-
40.)  The jury found Ms. Thompson guilty of all three charges.  (R., p.43.)
At sentencing, the State recommended that the court retain jurisdiction and impose a
unified sentence of seven years, with three years fixed, for the methamphetamine charge.
(Tr., p.189, Ls.8-12.)  Defense counsel requested that Ms. Thompson be granted probation.
(Tr., p.192, L.9 – p.193, L.9.)  The district court imposed a unified sentence of seven years, with
one year fixed, for the methamphetamine charge, and 120 days sentences for the two
misdemeanor convictions.  (R., pp.50-52.)  Ms. Thompson filed a Notice of Appeal timely from
the district court’s Judgment of Conviction and Commitment.  (R., pp.59-60.)  She also filed a
Motion for Reconsideration of Sentence.  (R, p.64.)  The motion was denied.  (Augmentation:
Order Denying Motion for Reduction of Sentence.)2
1 For ease of reference, the electronic file containing the Presentence Investigation Report and
attachments will be cited as “PSI” and referenced pages will correspond with the electronic page
numbers contained in this file.
2 Ms. Thompson filed a Motion to Augment contemporaneously with this Appellant’s Brief.
3
ISSUES
I. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it imposed, upon Ms. Thompson, a unified
sentence of seven years, with one year fixed, following her conviction for possession of a
controlled substance?
II. Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied Ms. Thompson’s Idaho Criminal
Rule 35 Motion for a Reduction of Sentence?
ARGUMENT
I.
The District Court Abused Its Discretion When It Imposed, Upon Ms. Thompson, A Unified
Sentence Of Seven Years, With One Year Fixed, Following Her Conviction For Possession Of A
Controlled Substance
Ms. Thompson asserts that, given any view of the facts, her unified sentence of seven
years, with  one years fixed, is excessive.  Where a defendant contends that the sentencing court
imposed an excessively harsh sentence, the appellate court will conduct an independent review
of the record giving consideration to the nature of the offense, the character of the offender, and
the protection of the public interest. See State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771 (Ct. App. 1982).
The Idaho Supreme Court has held that, “‘[w]here a sentence is within statutory limits, an
appellant has the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the court imposing
the sentence.’” State v. Jackson, 130 Idaho 293, 294 (1997) (quoting State v. Cotton, 100 Idaho
573, 577 (1979)).  Ms. Thompson does not allege that her sentence exceeds the statutory
maximum.  Accordingly, in order to show an abuse of discretion, Ms. Thompson must show that
in light of the governing criteria, the sentence was excessive considering any view of the facts.
Id. (citing State v. Broadhead, 120 Idaho 141, 145 (1991), overruled on other grounds by State v.
Brown, 121 Idaho 385 (1992)).  The governing criteria or objectives of criminal punishment are:
(1) protection of society; (2) deterrence of the individual and the public generally; (3) the
4
possibility of rehabilitation; and (4) punishment or retribution for wrongdoing. Id. (quoting State
v. Wolfe, 99 Idaho 382, 384 (1978), overruled on other grounds by State v. Coassolo, 136 Idaho
138 (2001)).
Appellate courts use a four-part test for determining whether a district court abused its
discretion: Whether the trial court:  (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2)
acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards
applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of
reason. Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863 (2018).  Ms. Thompson asserts in light of
the evidence, including the mitigating factors present in her case, the ultimate sentencing
conclusion was unreasonable and, as a result, the district court did not reach its decision by an
exercise of reason.
Idaho courts have previously recognized that substance abuse and a desire for treatment
should be considered as a mitigating factor by the district court when that court imposes
sentence. State v. Nice, 103 Idaho 89 (1982).  Additionally, in State v. Alberts, 121 Idaho 204
(Ct. App. 1991), the Idaho Court of Appeals reduced the sentence imposed, “In light of Alberts’
expression of remorse for his conduct, his recognition of his problem, his willingness to accept
treatment and other positive attributes of his character.” Id. 121 Idaho at 209.  Unfortunately,
Ms. Thompson has a history of substance abuse.  She began using marijuana as a teenager and
methamphetamine in her early 20s.  (PSI, p.75.)  Recently, she has worked very hard to
overcome her substance abuse and addiction issues and expressed a desire to participate in
treatment while continuing with her employment.  (Tr., p.194, L.14 – p.195, L.15.)
Ms. Thompson has been working at Quick Wok and the job is available for her return.
(Tr., p.191, Ls.16-18.)  At the sentencing hearing she stated:
5
Ever since we picked up that pipe at Janet’s that day [I] have been pretty
much all about recovery, and I wish I could start celebrating recovery, not, you
know, hiding around like a fugitive, but I have not been using drugs.  I’ve come to
a point in my life where I am thinking about quitting smoking cigarettes and
drinking alcohol and stuff as well, and that’s what I’ve been working on, but ever
since we got in trouble that day, I’ve not been on meth, very limited on marijuana
and stuff.  That’s my drug of choice, or alcohol, and I’ve been abstaining and
scared every day.  I’ve been thinking, what’s going to happen?  What’s going to
happen?  So the punishment, I mean, it’s been, what, over a year now, but the
punishment, every day when I wake up, I think, you know, what’s going to
happen?  This is terrible, you know, and I’m catastrophizing, and so I’m just glad
to be here today, and I’m glad to leave it up to your discretion, and I would be
glad to have the structure in the community and be able to return to work, and,
then, you know, I don’t want to minimize anything, or whatever, but there’s stray
cats out there waiting for me to come feed them, and I have food in the fridge that
hasn’t spoiled.  And I have a few months on my driver’s registration.  I’d like to
be able to pick up my life, you know, from here and not live in fear and just, you
know, you won’t see me in this courtroom again.  I guarantee it.  So I’m not
asking you gamble on that or take a better anything.  I’m just telling you I’m
giving you my oath, and I’m asking you to have some confidence in me, and
thank you.
(Tr., p.194, L.14 – p.195, L.15.)  It is clear that Ms. Thompson desired an opportunity to
participate in treatment, continue working, and continue contributing to society.
Based upon the above mitigating factors, Ms. Thompson asserts that the district court
abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence upon him.
II.
The District Court Abused Its Discretion When It Denied Ms. Thompson’s Rule 35 Motion For
A Reduction Of Sentence
A motion to alter an otherwise lawful sentence under Rule 35 is addressed to the sound
discretion of the sentencing court, and essentially is a plea for leniency which may be granted if
the sentence originally imposed was unduly severe. State v. Trent, 125 Idaho 251, 253 (Ct. App.
1994) (citing State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21 (Ct. App.1987) and State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447
(Ct. App. 1984)).  “The criteria for examining rulings denying the requested leniency are the
6
same as those applied in determining whether the original sentence was reasonable.” Id. (citing
Lopez, 106 Idaho at 450).  “If the sentence was not excessive when pronounced, the defendant
must later show that it is excessive in view of new or additional information presented with the
motion for reduction.  Id. (citing State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114 (Ct. App. 1991)).  “When
presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of
new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the Rule
35 motion.” State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203 (2007).  Ms. Thompson asserts, in light of the
new or additional information supplied in support of her Rule 35 motion, the district court’s
ruling on the Rule 35 motion was unreasonable and, as a result, the district court did not reach its
decision by an exercise of reason.
Ms. Thompson sent a letter to the district court requesting a reduction in the
indeterminate portion of her sentence.  (R., p.65.)  In support of her request, she also supplied a
list of courses she accessed while at the county jail and noted that she is now participating in
education opportunities available through I.D.O.C.  (R., pp.67-72.)  She has participated in
numerous classes and completed classes on anger management, cognitive awareness, domestic
violence, and substance abuse.  (R., pp.66-72.)
Ms. Thompson asserts that in light of the above additional information and the mitigating
factors mentioned in section I, which need not be repeated, but are incorporated by reference, the
district court abused its discretion in denying her Rule 35 motion.
7
CONCLUSION
Mr. Thompson respectfully requests that this Court reduce his sentence as it deems
appropriate.  Alternatively, he requests that his case be remanded to the district court for a new
sentencing hearing.  Alternatively, he requests that the order denying his Rule 35 motion be
vacated and the case remanded to the district court for further proceedings.
DATED this 5th day of February, 2021.
/s/ Elizabeth Ann Allred
ELIZABETH ANN ALLRED
Deputy State Appellate Public Defender
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 5th day of February, 2021, I caused a true and correct
copy of the foregoing APPELLANT’S BRIEF to be served as follows:
KENNETH K. JORGENSEN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
E-Service: ecf@ag.idaho.gov
/s/ Evan A. Smith
EVAN A. SMITH
Administrative Assistant
EAA/eas


State v. Thompson Appellant\u27s Brief Dckt. 47933

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7873/thumbnail.jp

UIdaho Law 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law 
Not Reported Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 
2-25-2021 
State v. Verbillis Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47939 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported 
Recommended Citation 
"State v. Verbillis Respondent's Brief Dckt. 47939" (2021). Not Reported. 6874. 
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/6874 
This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by the Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs at 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Not Reported by an authorized administrator 
of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact annablaine@uidaho.edu. 
 1 
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN 
Attorney General 
State of Idaho 
 
COLLEEN D. ZAHN 
Deputy Attorney General 
Chief, Criminal Law Division 
 
KENNETH K. JORGENSEN 
Deputy Attorney General 
P. O. Box 83720 
Boise, Idaho  83720-0010 
(208) 334-4534 
E-mail: ecf@ag.idaho.gov 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
 
STATE OF IDAHO,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
 
ANTHONY JOSEPH VERBILLIS, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
NO. 47939-2020 
 
Bonner County Case No. 
CR09-18-5037 
 
           
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF 
 
 
 Has Verbillis failed to show that the district court abused its sentencing discretion when it 
imposed a sentence of two years with one year determinate and retained jurisdiction upon his 
conviction for possession of methamphetamine? 
 
ARGUMENT 
 
Verbillis Has Failed To Show That The District Court Abused Its Sentencing Discretion 
 
A. Introduction 
 Police found a methamphetamine pipe, marijuana, and other drug paraphernalia in 
Verbillis’s car.  (R., pp. 12-13.)  The state charged Verbillis with possession of methamphetamine, 
possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  (R., pp. 74-75.)  Verbillis pled 
Electronically Filed
2/25/2021 12:20 PM
Idaho Supreme Court
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk of the Court
By: Murriah Clifton, Deputy Clerk
 2 
guilty to possession of methamphetamine as part of a plea agreement.  (R., p. 157.)  The district 
court imposed a sentence of two years with one year determinate and retained jurisdiction.  (R., 
pp. 212-14.)   
 Verbillis filed a Rule 35 motion requesting leniency.  (R., p. 219.)  The district court denied 
the motion.  (R., p. 221.)  Verbillis filed a notice of appeal timely from the entry of judgment.  (R., 
pp. 223-24.)   
 Verbillis argues the district court abused its discretion because retaining jurisdiction, 
instead of granting probation, was unreasonable “under any reasonable view of the facts.”  
(Appellant’s brief, pp. 3-4.)  However, review of the record shows no abuse of discretion.   
 
B. Standard Of Review 
 
 The length of a sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard considering the 
defendant’s entire sentence.  State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007) (citing 
State v. Strand, 137 Idaho 457, 460, 50 P.3d 472, 475 (2002); State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 
159 P.3d 838 (2007)).  It is presumed that the fixed portion of the sentence will be the defendant’s 
probable term of confinement.  Id. (citing State v. Trevino, 132 Idaho 888, 980 P.2d 552 (1999)).  
Where a sentence is within statutory limits, the appellant bears the burden of demonstrating that it 
is a clear abuse of discretion.  State v. Baker, 136 Idaho 576, 577, 38 P.3d 614, 615 (2001) (citing 
State v. Lundquist, 134 Idaho 831, 11 P.3d 27 (2000)).   
 The Court “review[s] a decision to relinquish jurisdiction for abuse of discretion.”  State v. 
Latneau, 154 Idaho 165, 166, 296 P.3d 371, 372 (2013). 
In evaluating whether a lower court abused its discretion, the appellate court conducts a 
four-part inquiry, which asks “whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of 
discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the 
 3 
legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the 
exercise of reason.”  State v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 270, 429 P.3d 149, 158 (2018) (citing 
Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018)). 
 
C. Verbillis Has Shown No Abuse Of The District Court’s Discretion 
 
 To bear the burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion, the appellant must establish 
that, under any reasonable view of the facts, the sentence was excessive.  State v. Farwell, 144 
Idaho 732, 736, 170 P.3d 397, 401 (2007).  In determining whether the appellant met this burden, 
the court considers the entire sentence but, because the decision to release the defendant on parole 
is exclusively the province of the executive branch, presumes that the determinate portion will be 
the period of actual incarceration.  State v. Bailey, 161 Idaho 887, 895, 392 P.3d 1228, 1236 (2017) 
(citing Oliver, 144 Idaho at 726, 170 P.3d at 391).  To establish that the sentence was excessive, 
the appellant must demonstrate that reasonable minds could not conclude the sentence was 
appropriate to accomplish the sentencing goals of protecting society, deterrence, rehabilitation, 
and retribution.  Farwell, 144 Idaho at 736, 170 P.3d at 401.  A sentence is reasonable “‘if it appears 
necessary to accomplish the primary objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of 
the related goals of deterrence, rehabilitation, or retribution.’”  Bailey, 161 Idaho at 895-96, 392 
P.3d at 1236-37 (quoting State v. McIntosh, 160 Idaho 1, 8, 368 P.3d 621, 628 (2015)). 
 The district court stated that it was retaining jurisdiction because of “all those failures to 
appear.”  (3/9/20 Tr., p. 9, L. 25 – p. 10, L. 3.)  “[T]here were six bench warrants” and Verbillis 
was “on the run for months.”  (3/9/20 Tr., p. 10, Ls. 6-15.)  Verbillis therefore needed “the 
discipline and the programming that they now provide in the retained jurisdiction program.”  
(3/9/20 Tr., p. 10, Ls. 16-18.)  The record supports the district court’s findings of six bench 
warrants in this case.  (R., p. 2.)  Verbillis’s failure to appear on this case reasonably supports the 
 4 
district court’s determination that Verbillis required the programming provided by the retained 
jurisdiction program to be ready to succeed on probation. 
 Verbillis points out that this was his first felony conviction and that he expressed remorse 
and a desire to rehabilitate.  (Appellant’s brief, pp. 3-4.)  The district court listened to defense 
counsel’s argument and Verbillis’s allocution.  (3/9/20 Tr., p. 7, L. 4 – p. 9, L. 20.)  The district 
court found and considered that this was Verbillis’s first felony.  (3/9/20 Tr., p. 10, Ls. 18-19.)  
Verbillis has failed to show on this record that the district court abused its sentencing discretion. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The state respectfully requests this Court to affirm the judgment of the district court. 
 DATED this 25th day of February, 2021. 
 
 
  /s/  Kenneth K. Jorgensen 
KENNETH K. JORGENSEN 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 25th day of February, 2021, served a true and correct 
copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT’S BRIEF to the attorney listed below by means of iCourt 
File and Serve: 
 
JUSTIN M. CURTIS 
DEPUTY STATE APPELLATE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
documents@sapd.state.id.us 
 
 
 
  /s/  Kenneth K. Jorgensen 
KENNETH K. JORGENSEN 
Deputy Attorney General 
KKJ/dd 
 


State v. Verbillis Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 47939

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7887/thumbnail.jp

UIdaho Law 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law 
Not Reported Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 
2-26-2021 
State v. McGuire Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48005 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported 
Recommended Citation 
"State v. McGuire Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48005" (2021). Not Reported. 6888. 
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/6888 
This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by the Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs at 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Not Reported by an authorized administrator 
of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact annablaine@uidaho.edu. 
 1 
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN 
Attorney General 
State of Idaho 
 
COLLEEN D. ZAHN 
Deputy Attorney General 
Chief, Criminal Law Division 
 
KENNETH K. JORGENSEN 
Deputy Attorney General 
P.O. Box 83720 
Boise, Idaho  83720-0010 
(208) 334-4534 
Email: ecf@ag.idaho.gov 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
 
STATE OF IDAHO,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
 
v. 
 
 
KENNETH THOMAS MCGUIRE, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
NO. 48005-2020 
 
 
 
Bonner County Case No. CR09-19-663 
 
 
 
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF 
 
 
 Has Kenneth Thomas McGuire failed to show that the district court abused its discretion 
by relinquishing jurisdiction and denying his Rule 35 motion? 
 
ARGUMENT 
 
McGuire Has Failed To Show That The District Court Abused Its Discretion 
 
A. Introduction 
In 2019, authorities conducting a traffic stop on Kenneth Thomas McGuire for failing to 
use his turn signal.  (PSI, p. 2 (citations to electronic file named “Appeal Vol 1 – Confidential 
Exhibits.pdf”).)  McGuire showed signs of impairment, admitted to using illicit narcotics and 
Electronically Filed
2/26/2021 4:52 PM
Idaho Supreme Court
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk of the Court
By: Brad Thies, Deputy Clerk
 2 
submitted to a field sobriety test, which he failed.  (PSI, p. 2.)  Upon searching McGuire’s vehicle, 
authorities located a hypodermic syringe and a zip lock bag containing a ball of heroin.  (PSI, pp. 
2-3.)   
The state charged McGuire with one count of possession of a controlled substance, one 
count of unlawful possession of drug paraphernalia, and a persistent violator enhancement.  (R., 
pp. 71-74.)  McGuire bailed out, and the state filed a request for bench warrant after McGuire 
attempted to pass off someone else’s urine with a spandex belt holding a bag and tubing.  (R., pp. 
101-103.)  McGuire also admitted to using heroin and meth on June 2, 2019, and stated that he had 
suicidal ideations and possessed a firearm.  (R., p. 102.)  On May 21, 2019, McGuire provided a 
cold urine sample, which looked and smelled like lemon lime.  (R., p. 102.)  McGuire bailed out 
again on June 19, 2019, and then tested presumptive positive for methamphetamine, THC and 
opiates on June 21, 2019.  (R., pp. 129-136, 142.)  McGuire failed to appear for court on numerous 
occasions, failed to show for testing on June 24, 2019, and tested positive for methamphetamine 
on June 25 and 28, 2019.  (R., p. 142.)  The state filed a request for bench warrant, and McGuire 
was taken into custody.  (R., pp. 141, 150.)   
McGuire entered a plea of guilty to possession of a controlled substance and the persistent 
violator enhancement, and the state agreed to dismiss the paraphernalia charge.  (R., pp. 153-162, 
171.)  McGuire bailed out once more, and the state filed a request for bench warrant after McGuire 
reported for testing, but left without providing a sample.  (R., pp. 174-177, 179-181.)  The district 
court sentenced McGuire to five years, with two years determinate for possession of a controlled 
substance, and retained jurisdiction.  (R., pp. 186-188.)  Following a period of retained jurisdiction, 
the district court relinquished jurisdiction and executed the underlying sentence of five years, with 
 3 
two years determinate and credit for 232 days served.  (R., pp. 199-200.)  McGuire filed a Rule 35 
motion, which the district court denied, and then filed a timely appeal.  (R., pp. 210-213, 216-220.)   
On appeal, McGuire argues that “the district court acted arbitrarily and unreasonably, 
representing an abuse of discretion, when it decided to relinquish jurisdiction and when it refused 
to reduce his sentence, especially in light of the additional information he presented with his Rule 
35 motion.”  (Appellant’s brief, p. 9.)  McGuire has failed to show that the district court abused its 
discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction and denying his Rule 35 motion. 
 
B. Standard Of Review 
The decision to place a defendant on probation 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. 
Reed, 163 Idaho 681, 684, 417 P.3d 1007, 1010 (Ct. App. 2018) (citations omitted).  Rehabilitation 
and public safety are dual goals of probation.  State v. Le Veque, 164 Idaho 110, 114, 426 P.3d 
461, 465 (2018).  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.  State v. Reber, 138 Idaho 275, 278, 61 
P.3d 632, 635 (Ct. App. 2002) (citing State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. 
App. 1982)). 
“If a sentence is within the statutory limits, a motion for reduction of sentence under Rule 
35 is a plea for leniency, and we review the denial of the motion for an abuse of discretion.”  State 
v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007).  In evaluating whether a lower court 
abused its discretion, the appellate court conducts a four-part inquiry, which asks “whether the 
trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer 
boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the 
specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.”  State v. 
 4 
Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 272, 429 P.3d 149, 160 (2018) (citing Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 
Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018)). 
 
C. McGuire Has Shown No Abuse Of The District Court’s Discretion 
The record shows the district court perceived its discretion, employed the correct legal 
standards to the issue before it, and acted reasonably and within the scope of its discretion.   
At the rider review hearing, the district court stated that “it’s been many, many years that 
the Court has been well aware of [McGuire] and [his] history.”  (Tr., p. 44, Ls. 17-19 (citations to 
electronic file named “Appeal Vol 1 – Transcripts.pdf”).)  The district court acknowledged that 
McGuire has “a significant criminal history,” and that he does “have mental health issues, [he] 
came from a family that struggles with a lot of addiction issues.  [He’s] had some significant 
tragedies in [his] life.  But [he’s] been given opportunity after opportunity.”  (Tr., p. 44, Ls. 20-
25.)  The district court stated that McGuire’s “been in mental health court with Judge Mitchell, 
and [he] actually initially [was] terminated from mental health court, sent on a rider, came back 
and Judge Mitchell put [McGuire] in metal health drug court a second time and [he] did do very 
well then.”  (Tr., p. 45, Ls. 1-6.)  The district court then stated that “after [McGuire] graduated, 
[he wasn’t] being so closely supervised, [he] had these relapses, we had these cases, a number of 
cases."  (Tr., p. 45, Ls. 7-9.) 
McGuire “went back and forth about whether [he was] willing to even try a rider, [he was] 
very resistant at sentencing.  Finally said yes, and so the Court was willing to give [McGuire] that 
opportunity,” but the district court found that McGuire “squandered the opportunity.”  (Tr., p. 45, 
Ls. 19-24.)  The district court stated that when it “look[s] at somebody that goes into programming, 
does the work, but says I’m smarter than everybody else, I could do this stuff, this is a waste of 
time, gets off their meds . . . [McGuire] just did not do well on the rider.”  (Tr., p. 46, Ls. 1-7.)  
 5 
The district court stated “[t]hat was very clear that was [his] one opportunity to prove that [he] 
could get [himself] cleaned up again and get back on probation.”  (Tr., p. 46, Ls. 7-10.) 
On appeal, McGuire argues that his “mental health condition” and “efforts to resolve his 
suffering before insisting that the medications stop” show that the district court abused its 
discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction.  (Appellant’s brief, p. 8,)  Additionally, McGuire contends 
that his contact with “his previous mental health counselor,” and “safe and sober housing with his 
elderly grandparents” show that the district court abused its discretion by denying his Rule 35 
motion.  (Appellant’s brief, p. 9.)  McGuire’s arguments do not show an abuse of discretion.   
McGuire’s LSI score is twenty-eight, placing him in the moderate risk to reoffend category.  
(PSI, p. 2.)  His extensive criminal history consists of numerous felonies and opportunities on 
probation.  (PSI, pp. 3-4, 29-42.)  The presentence investigator stated that “[w]hile it is 
commendable Mr. McGuire has recognized his thinking errors and expressed his desire to address 
these problems, he has failed to use the coping skills he learned over years of treatment and 
supervision.”  (PSI, p. 5.)  The presentence investigator added that McGuire “failed to implement 
these skills on an independent level, as he was placed on unsupervised probation in 08/2018 and 
self-reported he relapsed in 09/2018,” and that “he has continued to commit crimes similar to those 
he has already been convicted of, which speaks to his continued thinking-errors, and lack of 
concern for the safety of the innocent public.”  (PSI, p. 5.)  The presentence investigator 
recommended that “McGuire be sentenced to the physical custody of the Idaho Department of 
Corrections.”  (PSI, p. 5.) 
In the addendum to the PSI, the case manager stated that “McGuire showed a disconnect 
for his accountability and negative behavior,” and “while he was doing well in T4C, he was not 
performing the same as he was in the CBI-SA class.”  (PSI, p. 108.)  The case manager stated that 
 6 
McGuire “claims to have taken cognitive behavior classes previously, and he should be teaching 
the classes.  He refused to see the value in retaking the class or taking any program that was offered 
to him.”  (PSI, p. 108.)  McGuire “threatened to relinquish himself upon arrival to the NICI facility 
and by his disciplinary history, his behavior has not shown any progress.”  (PSI, p. 108.)  McGuire 
told the case manager that the rider programs are “‘a waste of time,’” that he “‘wasn’t learning 
anything in them,’” that he did not intend on changing his ways when he completed retained 
jurisdiction, that he’d continue “‘doing what he has always done,’” and that the other offenders 
were all “‘punks.’”  (PSI, p. 108.)  The case manager stated that “McGuire’s resistance to the 
program and continued intimidating mannerisms, he would not be a good candidate for probation 
and would present an unacceptable risk to the community,” and therefore recommended that the 
district court relinquish jurisdiction.  (PSI, pp. 108-109.)   
McGuire’s violations on pretrial release and negative attitude throughout his period of 
retained jurisdiction shows that the district court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction is reasonable 
and justified.  McGuire’s insufficient performance during his period of retained jurisdiction and 
his repeated criminal behavior after numerous opportunities on probation show that he is not a 
suitable candidate for a period of community supervision.  McGuire’s mitigating factors fail to 
warrant a reduction of sentence pursuant to his Rule 35 motion.  The sentence of five years, with 
two years determinate and credit for 232 days served is reasonable, and provides proper protection 
to the community, as well as deterrence to McGuire’s criminal behavior.  The record shows that 
the district court reviewed and considered the facts in this case, and McGuire has failed to show 
that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction and denying his Rule 35 
motion.   
 
 7 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The state respectfully requests this Court to affirm the judgment of the district court. 
 DATED this 26th day of February, 2021. 
 
 
      /s/ Kenneth K. Jorgensen____ 
      KENNETH K. JORGENSEN 
      Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
      ZACHARI S. HALLETT 
      Paralegal 
 
 
 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
            I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 26th day of February, 2021, served a true and 
correct copy of the attached RESPONDENT’S BRIEF to the attorney listed below by means of 
iCourt File and Serve: 
 
KIMBERLY A. COSTER  
DEPUTY STATE APPELLATE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
documents@sapd.state.id.us 
 
 
 
                                                                        /s/ Kenneth K. Jorgensen____ 
                                                                        KENNETH K. JORGENSEN 
                                                                        Deputy Attorney General 
 


State v. McGuire Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 48005

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7906/thumbnail.jp

UIdaho Law 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law 
Not Reported Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 
3-9-2021 
State v. Hearne Appellant's Brief Dckt. 48035 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported 
Recommended Citation 
"State v. Hearne Appellant's Brief Dckt. 48035" (2021). Not Reported. 6907. 
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/6907 
This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by the Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs at 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Not Reported by an authorized administrator 
of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact annablaine@uidaho.edu. 
1
ERIC D. FREDERICKSEN
State Appellate Public Defender
I.S.B. #6555
JUSTIN M. CURTIS
Deputy State Appellate Public Defender
I.S.B. #6406
322 E. Front Street, Suite 570
Boise, Idaho 83702
Phone: (208) 334-2712
Fax: (208) 334-2985
E-mail: documents@sapd.state.id.us
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO
STATE OF IDAHO, )
) NO. 48035-2020
Plaintiff-Respondent, )
) ADA COUNTY NO. CR01-19-45299
v. )
)
NICHOLAS JOHN HEARNE, ) APPELLANT’S BRIEF
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
______________________________)
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Nature of the Case
Nicholas John Hearne appeals from his judgment of conviction for trafficking in heroin.
Mr. Hearne pleaded guilty and the district court imposed a unified sentence of thirty-eight years,
with fifteen years determinate.  Mr. Hearne appeals, and he asserts that the district court abused
its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.
Electronically Filed
3/9/2021 1:03 PM
Idaho Supreme Court
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk of the Court
By: Murriah Clifton, Deputy Clerk
2
Statement of the Facts & Course of Proceedings
On August 7, 2019, an officer with the Boise Police Department initiated a traffic stop on
a vehicle that did not have active taillights.  (Presentence Investigation Report (hereinafter, PSI),
p.2.)1  The driver, Mr. Hearne, exited the vehicle and the officer reported smelling marijuana.
(PSI, p.2.)  A subsequent search of Mr. Hearne’s backpack revealed drug paraphernalia as well
as marijuana, methamphetamine, and heroin.  (PSI, p.3.)  Mr. Hearne later admitted to travelling
to Spokane to purchase heroin, which he planned to sell.  (PSI, p.3.)
Mr. Hearne was charged with trafficking in heroin in excess of 28 grams, possession of a
controlled substance, methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia.  (R., p.25.)  He
pleaded guilty to an amended charge of trafficking in heroin in excess of 7 grams.  (R., pp.29;
31; 32.)  The district court imposed a sentence of thirty-eight years, with fifteen years
determinate.  (R., p.52.)  Mr. Hearne appealed.  (R., p.60.)  He asserts that the district court
abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.
ISSUE
Did the district court abuse its discretion when it imposed a unified sentence of thirty-eight years,
with fifteen years determinate, upon Mr. Hearne following his plea of guilty to trafficking in
heroin?
ARGUMENT
The District Court Abused Its Discretion When It Imposed A Unified Sentence Of Thirty-Eight
Years, With Fifteen Years Determinate, Upon Mr. Hearne Following His Plea Of Guilty To
Trafficking In Heroin
“It is well-established that ‘[w]here a sentence is within statutory limits, an appellant has
the burden of showing a clear abuse of discretion on the part of the court imposing the
1 The PSI begins on page 64 of the electronic file containing the confidential exhibits.
3
sentence.’” State v. Pierce, 150 Idaho 1, 5 (2010) (quoting State v. Jackson, 130 Idaho 293, 294
(1997) (alteration in original)).  Here, Mr. Hearne’s sentence does not exceed the statutory
maximum. See I.C. § 37-2732B(a)(6)(B)(maximum sentence of life, minimum sentence of ten
years).  Accordingly, to show that the sentence imposed was unreasonable, Mr. Hearne “must
show that the sentence, in light of the governing criteria, is excessive under any reasonable view
of the facts.” State v. Strand, 137 Idaho 457, 460 (2002).
“‘Reasonableness’ of a sentence implies that a term of confinement should be tailored to
the purpose for which the sentence is imposed.” State v. Adamcik, 152 Idaho 445, 483 (2012)
(quoting State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 139, 148 (2008)).
In examining the reasonableness of a sentence, the Court conducts an independent
review of the entire record available to the trial court at sentencing, focusing on
the objectives of criminal punishment: (1) protection of society; (2) deterrence of
the individual and the public; (3) possibility of rehabilitation; and (4) punishment
or retribution for wrongdoing.
Stevens, 146 Idaho at 148.  “A sentence is reasonable if it appears necessary to accomplish the
primary objective of protecting society and to achieve any or all of the related goals of
deterrence, rehabilitation, or retribution.” State v. Delling, 152 Idaho 122, 132 (2011).
Mr. Hearne asserts the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence
under any reasonable view of the facts.
At the sentencing hearing, counsel for Mr. Hearne emphasized that Mr. Hearne
recognized his substance abuse addictions and the steps he had taken to overcome the addiction.
Counsel stated that Mr. Hearne had started using opiates around the age of  and moved
on to heroin around the age of  he had been an addict for over ten years.  (Sent.
Tr., p.12, Ls.11-14.)  Mr. Hearne did not think he would ever become a drug dealer, but as his
addiction grew, so did his depression, and “I believe that with his addiction and his depression,
4
he didn’t really see any other way to try to continue his habit and support himself, and so that led
him to becoming a drug dealer.”  (Sent. Tr., p.12, Ls.15-21.)
However, at the time of sentencing, Mr. Hearne was “clean and sober, and he has been
now for quite some time, [and] he feels awful for the choices he made.”  (Sent. Tr., p.12, Ls.22-
24.)  Mr. Hearne was not proud that he had been selling drugs and he regretted encouraging
others’ addictions.  (Sent. Tr., p.12, Ls.22-25.)
Counsel stated that Mr. Hearne was smart, funny, and kind.  (Sent. Tr., p.13, Ls.4-11.)
He knew that he was going to spent at least the next fifteen years in prison, but he was still
looking forward to the day he was released.2  Mr. Hearne had done “very well in accepting that,”
had a great family support system, and “he knows that while he’s in prison, it will be there for
him; and when he gets out, they will be there for him.”  (Sent. Tr., p.13, L.22 – p.14, L.5.)
Counsel emphasized that, more than incarceration, needed help for his addiction, and
“unfortunately, somewhere along the way, he got lost and just was never able to get the help that
he needed.”  (Sent. Tr., p.14, Ls.16-22.)
Mr. Hearne addressed the district court at the sentencing hearing.  He stated,
I’d just like to start by saying that I take full responsibility for my actions.  I
understand that I’m here in front of you today because of the choices I made.  I
regret my mistakes and how they’ve affected my loved ones and those close to
me, and how I have helped contribute to those struggling with addiction the same
way I have for nearly a decade.
I’d like to ask you to consider a fair sentence with regards to the minimum, of
course, so I can pay my debt to society, take advantage of this time to learn what I
can and grow as an individual and pass this while I still have the opportunity to
make something of my life.
2 The sentencing hearing was consolidated with another case in which Mr. Hearne pleaded guilty
to trafficking in heroin in excess of 28 grams, which carries a fifteen-year mandatory minimum.
(Sent. Tr., p.20, Ls.4-11.)  The district court imposed fifteen years fixed in that case.  (Sent.
Tr., p.20, Ls.4-11.)
5
(Sent. Tr., p.15, Ls.11-24.)
Considering that Mr. Hearne accepted responsibility for his actions, expressed remorse,
acknowledged his addiction, had the support of his family, and had already become clean and
sober by the time of sentencing, he respectfully asserts that that district court abused its
discretion by imposing an excessive sentence.
CONCLUSION
Mr. Hearne respectfully requests that this Court reduce his sentence as it deems
appropriate.  Alternatively, he requests that his case be remanded to the district court for a new
sentencing hearing.
DATED this 9th day of March, 2021.
/s/ Justin M. Curtis
JUSTIN M. CURTIS
Deputy State Appellate Public Defender
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 9th day of March, 2021, I caused a true and correct
copy of the foregoing APPELLANT’S BRIEF to be served as follows:
KENNETH K. JORGENSEN
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
E-Service: ecf@ag.idaho.gov
/s/ Evan A. Smith
EVAN A. SMITH
Administrative Assistant
JMC/eas


State v. Hearne Appellant\u27s Brief Dckt. 48035

https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/7925/thumbnail.jp

UIdaho Law 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law 
Not Reported Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs 
1-29-2021 
State v. Loos Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48077 
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported 
Recommended Citation 
"State v. Loos Respondent's Brief Dckt. 48077" (2021). Not Reported. 6926. 
https://digitalcommons.law.uidaho.edu/not_reported/6926 
This Court Document is brought to you for free and open access by the Idaho Supreme Court Records & Briefs at 
Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Not Reported by an authorized administrator 
of Digital Commons @ UIdaho Law. For more information, please contact annablaine@uidaho.edu. 
 1 
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN 
Attorney General 
State of Idaho 
 
COLLEEN D. ZAHN 
Deputy Attorney General 
Chief, Criminal Law Division 
 
KACEY L. JONES 
Deputy Attorney General 
P. O. Box 83720 
Boise, Idaho  83720-0010 
(208) 334-4534 
Email: ecf@ag.idaho.gov 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
 
STATE OF IDAHO,  
 
          Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
 
DEYLEN SCOTT LOOS, 
 
          Defendant-Appellant. 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
 
NO. 48077-2020 
 
Ada County Case No. 
CR01-19-28924 
 
 
RESPONDENT’S BRIEF 
 
 
 Has Loos failed to show that the district court abused its discretion when it imposed a 
sentence of seven years with one year fixed following his plea of guilty to possession of 
methamphetamine? 
 
ARGUMENT 
 
Loos Has Failed To Show That The District Court Abused Its Sentencing Discretion 
 
A. Introduction 
 Law enforcement were dispatched to a report of a possible theft.  (PSI, p.3.)  The calling 
party reported he saw a man he did not recognize going through items on his neighbor’s property.  
Electronically Filed
1/29/2021 1:27 PM
Idaho Supreme Court
Melanie Gagnepain, Clerk of the Court
By: Brad Thies, Deputy Clerk
 2 
(PSI, p.3.)  The calling party saw the man take a bike, bags, and a roller suitcase from the front 
porch of the house and head towards a nearby gas station.  (PSI, p.3.)   
 Officers responded to the gas station and saw a bike, backpack, multiple bags, and a roller 
suitcase sitting outside.  (PSI, p.3.)  Inside, an officer made contact with a man matching the 
caller’s description.  (PSI, p.3.)  The man, who identified himself as Loos, told the officer the items 
outside the gas station were his.  (PSI, p.3.)  When asked where he got the items, Loos said he took 
them from the nearby house; Loos stated he helped the owner move and they agreed he could take 
the items or else they would be thrown away.  (PSI, p.3.)  Loos could not provide the homeowner’s 
name or contact information.  (PSI, p.3.)   
While officers attempted to contact the homeowner, they discovered a warrant for Loos’ 
arrest.  (PSI, p.3.)  Officers arrested Loos on the outstanding warrant.  (PSI, p.3.)  Loos gave 
conflicting and inconsistent information about which items were his.  (PSI, p.3.)  Inside one of the 
bags, officers found several hypodermic needles.  (PSI, p.4.)  In that same bag, officers found an 
unlabeled prescription bottle containing a baggie of methamphetamine.  (PSI, p.4.)  Loos admitted 
knowing about the needles but denied knowledge of the pill bottle.  (PSI, p.4.)  Law enforcement 
found a matching hypodermic needle in Loos’s pocket.  (PSI, p.4.)   
The state charged Loos with felony possession of methamphetamine and misdemeanor 
possession of paraphernalia, along with an Information Part II.  (R., pp.35-39.)  Pursuant to a plea 
agreement, Loos pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance and the state dismissed the 
remaining count and the Information Part II.  (R., pp.179-89, 191.)  The district court sentenced 
Loos to seven years with one year fixed.  (R., pp.191-93; 5/14/2020 Tr., p.23, Ls.7-10.)  Loos filed 
a timely notice of appeal.  (R., pp.198-99.) 
 
 3 
B. Standard Of Review 
 
The length of a sentence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard considering the 
defendant’s entire sentence.  State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007) (citing 
State v. Strand, 137 Idaho 457, 460, 50 P.3d 472, 475 (2002); State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 
159 P.3d 838 (2007)).  Where a sentence is within statutory limits, the appellant bears the burden 
of demonstrating that it is a clear abuse of discretion.  State v. Baker, 136 Idaho 576, 577, 38 P.3d 
614, 615 (2001) (citing State v. Lundquist, 134 Idaho 831, 11 P.3d 27 (2000)).  In evaluating 
whether a lower court abused its discretion, the appellate court conducts a four-part inquiry, which 
asks “whether the trial court: (1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within 
the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to 
the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.”  State 
v. Herrera, 164 Idaho 261, 272, 429 P.3d 149, 160 (2018) (citing Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 
Idaho 856, 863, 421 P.3d 187, 194 (2018)). 
 
C. Loos Has Shown No Abuse Of The District Court’s Discretion 
 
 To bear the burden of demonstrating an abuse of discretion, the appellant must establish 
that, under any reasonable view of the facts, the sentence was excessive.  State v. Farwell, 144 
Idaho 732, 736, 170 P.3d 397, 401 (2007).  In determining whether the appellant met this burden, 
the court considers the entire sentence but presumes that the determinate portion will be the period 
of actual incarceration.  State v. Bailey, 161 Idaho 887, 895, 392 P.3d 1228, 1236 (2017) (citing 
Oliver, 144 Idaho at 726, 170 P.3d at 391).  “When reviewing the reasonableness of a sentence, 
this Court conducts an independent review of the record, giving consideration to the nature of the 
offense, the character of the offender and the protection of the public interest.”  State v. McIntosh, 
160 Idaho 1, 8, 368 P.3d 621, 628 (2015).  To establish that the sentence was excessive, the 
 4 
appellant must demonstrate that reasonable minds could not conclude the sentence was appropriate 
to accomplish the sentencing goals of protecting society, deterrence, rehabilitation, and retribution.  
Farwell, 144 Idaho at 736, 170 P.3d at 401.  “‘In deference to the trial judge, this Court will not 
substitute its view of a reasonable sentence where reasonable minds might differ.’”  State v. 
Matthews, 164 Idaho 605, 608, 434 P.3d 209, 212 (2018) (quoting State v. Stevens, 146 Idaho 
139, 148-49, 191 P.3d 217, 226-27 (2008)). 
The sentence is reasonable in light of Loos’ criminal history and behavior.  Loos’ juvenile 
record includes five misdemeanors and one felony; as an adult, Loos accrued twelve misdemeanors 
and one felony as well as pending charges for escape in the third degree and fugitive from justice 
in Oregon.  (PSI, pp.6-12.)  Much of Loos’ record is drug or alcohol related, including numerous 
misdemeanors for possession of controlled substances and paraphernalia, and a 2011 felony 
conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to manufacture or deliver.  (PSI, 
pp.7-12.)   
Despite rehabilitative opportunities, Loos has continued to engage in criminal behavior and 
use controlled substances.  In the years preceding the instant offense Loos failed on probation and 
parole.  With respect to his 2011 felony, “[i]nitially [the district court] gave him a probation; then 
he violated.  [The court] gave him a rider and then he got probation again and then he violated 
again and got a second rider.  Then he violated again and ultimately the sentence was imposed.”  
(5/14/2020 Tr., p.21, Ls.7-20.)  “When not incarcerated, it appears he was rarely employed, 
continued to associate with other drug users and continued to abuse drugs, rarely attended 
scheduled appointments with his supervising officers, would not attend scheduled meetings to be 
screened for or attend drug treatment, was often not home at curfew, would not answer his 
telephone or set-up his voicemail, and would not turn himself in for discretionary jail time.”  (PSI, 
 5 
p.13.)  Loos estimated that “all of his acquaintances and 80% of his friends were participating in 
criminal activity.”  (PSI, p.14.)   
This behavior continued on pretrial release.  Loos failed to make contact with pretrial 
services after bonding out of jail and repeatedly failed to show for scheduled UA tests.  (R., pp.21-
22, 47-48, 97-112, 115-34, 136-47.)  Loos was arrested and charged with possession of alcohol, 
marijuana, and paraphernalia while subject to pretrial monitoring.  (R., pp.64-65.)  Unsurprisingly, 
Loos scored as a high risk for recidivism.  (PSI, p.20.)  As the district court noted, “[t]he PSI 
reports a long history of violations of both probation and parole.  Flopped out on the pretrial 
release.  He’s got disciplinary actions in the Ada County Jail as well as IDOC.  And, again, these 
escape charges.”  (5/14/2020 Tr., p.22, Ls.5-8.)  The presentence investigator expressed concern 
that Loos “does not have a residence or employment, does not participate in pro-social activities, 
does not appear to have many pro-social associates or friends, but does have a lengthy criminal 
history involving drug-related offenses.”  (PSI, p.22.)   
The district court properly considered the objectives of criminal sentencing, the 
circumstances of the crime, Loos’ background, character, and criminal history, the information 
and recommendation in the PSI, as well as the parties’ sentencing recommendations.  (See 
5/14/2020 Tr., p.5, L.15 – p.6, L.9; p.19, L.24 – p.20, L.13.)  After weighing the aggravating and 
mitigating factors, the district court reasonably concluded that an imposed sentence, rather than 
probation or a rider, was appropriate: “The bottom line is the defendant has had many chances in 
the last eight or nine or ten years.  He’s not amenable to probation.  He’s already had two riders.  
It seems imposition is really the most realistic and reasonable option at this time.”  (5/14/2020 Tr., 
p.23, L.22 – p.24, L.1.)  The district court did not abuse its sentencing discretion when it imposed 
a sentence of seven years with one year fixed.    
--
 6 
 Loos argues that the district court abused its discretion by not sentencing him to a probation 
or a rider, in light of his mitigating circumstances.  (Appellant’s brief, pp.3-6.)  However, the 
district court considered Loos’ mitigating circumstances, which were documented in the PSI and 
discussed at sentencing.  (See PSI, pp.5, 13-22; see also 5/14/2020 Tr., p.14, L.6 – p.18, L.20.)  
The district court specifically addressed Loos’ physical and mental health, substance abuse issues, 
and support system.  (See 5/14/2020 Tr., p.20, L.14 – p.23, L.2.)  However, the district court 
weighed those mitigating factors against the aggravating factors, which included Loos’ pattern of 
criminal behavior and the fact that Loos had previously been sentenced to probation and two riders 
but ended up having his sentence imposed because of noncompliance.  (5/14/2020 Tr., p.21, L.7 – 
p.22, L.13; p.23, L.22 – p.24, L.1.)  The district court did not abuse its discretion when it 
determined that neither probation nor retained jurisdiction was an appropriate sentence and instead 
imposed a sentence of seven years with one year fixed. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
 The state respectfully requests this Court to affirm the judgment of the district court. 
 DATED this 29th day of January, 2021. 
 
 
  /s/  Kacey L. Jones 
KACEY L. JONES 
Deputy Attorney General 
 
 
  
 7 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
 
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 29th day of January, 2021, served a true and correct 
copy of the foregoing RESPONDENT’S BRIEF to the attorney listed below by means of iCourt 
File and Serve: 
 
KIMBERLY A. COSTER 
DEPUTY STATE APPELLATE PUBLIC DEFENDER 
documents@sapd.state.id.us 
 
 
 
  /s/  Kacey L. Jones 
KACEY L. JONES 
Deputy Attorney General 
KLJ/dd 
 


University of Idaho

Not a member yet

Eich v. Wilbur J. Eich and Henrietta C. Eich Revocable Appellant\u27s Reply Brief Dckt. 48160

State v. Dunn Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 47677

State v. Luna Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 47760

State v. Cruse Appellant\u27s Reply Brief Dckt. 47801

State v. Gunter Appellant\u27s Reply Brief Dckt. 47890

State v. Thompson Appellant\u27s Brief Dckt. 47933

State v. Verbillis Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 47939

State v. McGuire Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 48005

State v. Hearne Appellant\u27s Brief Dckt. 48035

State v. Loos Respondent\u27s Brief Dckt. 48077

17,275

17,616