Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 19-2521 (2026)
sentencing Criteria for placing defendant on probation or imposing imprisonment.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
sentencing Criteria for placing defendant on probation or imposing imprisonment.
(1) The policy of the state of Idaho regarding sentencing of persons convicted of a crime is as follows, unless otherwise provided by law:
(a) The sentencing court should first consider placement in the community. The goals of sentencing include the primary consideration of the protection of society, followed by the possibility of risk reduction through rehabilitation, deterrence of the individual and the public generally, and punishment or retribution for wrongdoing and the impact on the victim; and
(b) Each discretionary sentence should be specifically tailored to the individual defendant and take into account the totality of all relevant facts and circumstances.
(2) The following factors, while not controlling the discretion of the court, shall be accorded weight in favor of avoiding a sentence of imprisonment:
(a) The defendant’s criminal conduct neither caused nor threatened harm;
(b) The defendant did not contemplate that his criminal conduct would cause or threaten harm;
(c) The defendant’s criminogenic needs indicate that the defendant will benefit from supervision and treatment in the community;
(d) There were substantial grounds tending to excuse or justify the defendant’s criminal conduct, though failing to establish a defense;
(e) The victim of the defendant’s criminal conduct induced or facilitated the commission of the crime;
(f) The defendant has compensated or will compensate the victim of his criminal conduct for the damage or injury that was sustained; provided, however, nothing in this section shall prevent the appropriate use of imprisonment and restitution in combination;
(g) The defendant has no history of prior delinquency or criminal activity or has led a law-abiding life for a substantial period of time before the commission of the present crime;
(h) The defendant’s criminal conduct was the result of circumstances unlikely to recur;
(i) The character and attitudes of the defendant indicate that the commission of another crime is unlikely; and
(j) The defendant demonstrates amenability to treatment.
(3) The following factors, while not controlling the discretion of the court, shall be accorded weight in favor of a sentence of imprisonment:
(a) There is undue risk that during the period of a suspended sentence or probation the defendant will commit another crime harmful to another person;
(b) A lesser sentence will depreciate the seriousness of the defendant’s crime;
(c) Imprisonment will provide appropriate punishment and deterrent to the defendant;
(d) Imprisonment will provide an appropriate deterrent for other persons in the community; and
(e) The defendant is a multiple offender or professional criminal.
(4) As used in this section, "criminogenic needs" means those dynamic factors associated with the likelihood of reoffending but that may be changed through effective intervention.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 190
cases (38 in the last 5 years), 1978–2026 · leading case: State v. Stover, 104 P.3d 969 (Idaho 2005).
State v. Stover, 104 P.3d 969 (Idaho 2005). “” Idaho Code § 19-2521 was never intended to be a mandatory sentencing scheme which implicates further findings by a jury.”
State v. Toohill, 650 P.2d 707 (Idaho Ct. App. 1982). “The exercise of this discretion is guided by I.C. § 19-2521, which prescribes criteria for weighing probation against a sentence of confinement.”
State v. Reber, 61 P.3d 632 (Idaho Ct. App. 2002). “THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION BY SENTENCING REBER TO IMPRISONMENT Reber argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to consider the sentencing criteria in I.”
Hughes v. State, 224 P.3d 515 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). “” The court ultimately determined that “the long and short of it is that I find that none of the factors which would favor probation, or for that matter retained jurisdiction as outlined in subsection (2) of Idaho Code Section 19-2521 apply here.” The sentencing court cited…”
State v. Stevens, 191 P.3d 217 (Idaho 2008). “In determining the appropriate punishment for this type of crime, in my opinion the punishment for the intentional killing without provocation of a helpless human being must reflect the value we place on human life.”
State v. Merwin, 962 P.2d 1026 (Idaho 1998). “Idaho Code § 19-2521 sets out the criteria a court must consider when deciding whether to grant probation or impose imprisonment.”
State v. Garcia, 462 P.3d 1125 (Idaho 2020). “See I.C. § 19-2521. The district court understood the statutory range of sentences available for Garcia’s crimes.”
State v. Moore, 965 P.2d 174 (Idaho 1998). “Moore also argues that the district court abused its discretion in denying probation.”
State v. Peregrina, 261 P.3d 815 (Idaho 2011). “3d 969, 973-74 (2005) (looking to legislative purpose in holding that I.C. § 19-2521 was intended to give discretion to the judge to decide, based on the factors it lists, whether to place a defendant on probation or sentence him within a statutory prescribed range, and…”
State v. Miller, 264 P.3d 935 (Idaho 2011). “§ 19-2523 and I.C § 19-2521 and did not abuse its discretion when sentencing Miller.”
State v. Flowers, 249 P.3d 367 (Idaho 2011). “Absent a provision in the plea agreement expressly limiting the information that the State can present, it can present any relevant information that could assist the court. Defendant’s conduct relating to the dismissed charges could properly be considered by the district court,…”
State v. Adams, 577 P.2d 1123 (Idaho 1978). “[9] I.C. § 19-2521 lists the "criteria for placing defendant on probation or imposing imprisonment.”
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(1) — 13 cases
Hughes v. State, 224 P.3d 515 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). “” The court ultimately determined that “the long and short of it is that I find that none of the factors which would favor probation, or for that matter retained jurisdiction as outlined in subsection (2) of Idaho Code Section 19-2521 apply here.” The sentencing court cited…”
State v. Schiermeier, 447 P.3d 895 (Idaho 2019).
State v. Matthews, 864 P.2d 644 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Alvarado, 481 P.3d 737 (Idaho 2021).
State v. Braaten, 167 P.3d 357 (Idaho Ct. App. 2007).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(1)(a) — 4 cases
State v. Urias, 852 P.2d 503 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Perez Garcia (Idaho 2026).
State v. Nugent (Idaho Ct. App. 2024).
State of Idaho v. Ahmed Majed Abdulhamza (Idaho Ct. App. 2026).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(1)(b) — 1 case
State v. Perez Garcia (Idaho 2026).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(1)(c) — 1 case
State v. Robison, 811 P.2d 500 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(1)(d) — 1 case
State v. West, 633 P.2d 1140 (Idaho 1981).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(1)(e) — 1 case
State v. Robison, 811 P.2d 500 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(2) — 13 cases
State v. Stover, 104 P.3d 969 (Idaho 2005). “” Idaho Code § 19-2521 was never intended to be a mandatory sentencing scheme which implicates further findings by a jury.”
State v. Schiermeier, 447 P.3d 895 (Idaho 2019).
Hughes v. State, 224 P.3d 515 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). “” The court ultimately determined that “the long and short of it is that I find that none of the factors which would favor probation, or for that matter retained jurisdiction as outlined in subsection (2) of Idaho Code Section 19-2521 apply here.” The sentencing court cited…”
State v. Chavez, 560 P.3d 488 (Idaho 2024).
State v. Cardenas, 803 P.2d 1015 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(2)(a) — 1 case
State v. Perez Garcia (Idaho 2026).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(2)(b) — 3 cases
Hughes v. State, 224 P.3d 515 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009). “” The court ultimately determined that “the long and short of it is that I find that none of the factors which would favor probation, or for that matter retained jurisdiction as outlined in subsection (2) of Idaho Code Section 19-2521 apply here.” The sentencing court cited…”
State v. Chavez, 560 P.3d 488 (Idaho 2024).
State v. Chavez (Idaho 2024).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(2)(d) — 1 case
State v. Jason Jay Ward (Idaho Ct. App. 2014).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(2)(f) — 1 case
State v. Todd, 208 P.3d 303 (Idaho Ct. App. 2009).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(2)(g) — 2 cases
State v. Westmoreland, 855 P.2d 65 (Idaho Ct. App. 1993).
State v. Perez Garcia (Idaho 2026).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(3) — 1 case
Tucker v. State (Idaho Ct. App. 2026).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(3)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Ruiz, 567 P.3d 789 (Idaho 2025).
State v. Perez Garcia (Idaho 2026).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(3)(e) — 1 case
State v. Perez Garcia (Idaho 2026).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(c) — 1 case
State v. Merwin, 962 P.2d 1026 (Idaho 1998). “Idaho Code § 19-2521 sets out the criteria a court must consider when deciding whether to grant probation or impose imprisonment.”
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(l)(a) — 2 cases
State v. Chapman, 816 P.2d 1023 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Cliff, 782 P.2d 44 (Idaho Ct. App. 1989).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(l)(b) — 1 case
State v. Chapman, 816 P.2d 1023 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(l)(c) — 2 cases
State v. Sabin, 820 P.2d 375 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991).
State v. Bivens, 803 P.2d 1025 (Idaho Ct. App. 1991).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(l)(d) — 1 case
State v. West, 633 P.2d 1140 (Idaho 1981).
— Idaho Code § 19-2521(l)(f) — 2 cases
State v. Stover, 104 P.3d 969 (Idaho 2005). “” Idaho Code § 19-2521 was never intended to be a mandatory sentencing scheme which implicates further findings by a jury.”
State v. Wright, 996 P.2d 298 (Idaho 2000).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.