State v. Beagles, 400 P.3d 1096

Beagles, after divorcing, lost access to an accounting firm's client portal; he later logged in using his ex-wife's email and security answers, changed her password, and emailed the firm screenshots containing confidential information.
Charged with three counts of computer crimes (third-degree felonies), Beagles pleaded guilty to three counts of attempted computer crimes (class A misdemeanors).
The district court sentenced him to three consecutive one-year jail terms, then suspended them and placed him on 36 months probation with a condition that he serve 60 days in jail.
Beagles appealed the 60-day jail condition, arguing the court abused its discretion by (1) giving inadequate reasons and relying on a PSI with factual errors, and (2) failing to give sufficient weight to mitigating factors (mental illness/substance abuse treatment, no new offenses for 18 months, family support, prior probation success).
The district court emphasized aggravating facts: brazen, repeated hacking, success in accessing the portal, a perceived high risk to reoffend based on Beagles's attitude, and the victim’s likely distress; it weighed these above the mitigating circumstances.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Beagles)	Held
Whether the 60-day jail condition was an abuse of discretion	Probation with a short jail term is within court's sentencing discretion to protect public interest and reflect aggravation	The 60-day jail term was excessive; court gave inadequate reasons and relied on a PSI with errors	Affirmed: court acted within its wide discretion; not an abuse of discretion
Whether the court failed to consider mitigating factors	Court considered mitigation but gave them less weight than aggravation	Court insufficiently weighed mental-health, treatment, sobriety, support, and prior compliance	Rejected: court considered mitigating factors and permissibly weighted aggravators more heavily
Whether the court erred by relying on PSI inaccuracies without correcting them on the record	Court considered Beagles's objections at sentencing and weighed the material presented	PSI contained factual errors that the court should have resolved on the record under statute	Not raised on appeal: Beagles did not argue the court failed to make required on-the-record PSI findings, so Court did not address statutory-compliance issue

State v. Moa, 282 P.3d 985 (discretionary review standard for sentencing)
LeBeau v. State, 337 P.3d 254 (sentencing abuse-of-discretion framework)
State v. Monzon, 365 P.3d 1234 (deference to reasonable sentencing decisions)
State v. Rhodes, 818 P.2d 1048 (probation is discretionary, not a right)
State v. Sibert, 310 P.2d 388 (consideration of character and intangibles at sentencing)
State v. Killpack, 191 P.3d 17 (not all mitigating/aggravating factors carry equal weight)
State v. Jaeger, 973 P.2d 404 (requirement to resolve PSI objections on the record)