2013 Unpublished Opinion No. 792
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Shoshone County. Hon. Fred M. Gibler, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of five years, with a minimum period of confinement of one and one-half years, for burglary, affirmed.
Sara B. Thomas, 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.
Larry Jason White appeals from the district court's judgment of conviction and sentence entered upon a jury verdict finding him guilty of burglary, Idaho Code § 18-1401, and petit theft, I.C. §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(2). We affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
White was accused of stealing a mink shawl from an antique store. At trial, White testified that he had suffered four strokes in the past and had been prescribed Klonopin to treat his post-traumatic stress disorder. White was convicted of burglary and petit theft and the district court ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI) to be prepared for sentencing. The PSI contained statements from White indicating that he was the target of a hit and that there had been repeated attempts on his life during the previous five years. White also recognized that he needed to enroll in mental health counseling to deal with his problems.
At sentencing, the district court stated that White's mental health contributed to his criminal behavior and imposed a unified term of five years, with one and one-half years determinate, to run concurrently with a sentence imposed in an unrelated case. White timely appeals.
White claims the district court erred by failing to sua sponte order a psychological evaluation prior to sentencing, pursuant to I.C. § 19-2522. He argues that the plain language of the statute places the obligation to order an evaluation upon the district court and is not dependent on a request from either party. The State contends that this claim cannot be reviewed on appeal because ...