PER CURIAM.
Dan E. Green appeals the trial court's entry of the judgment and sentence against him on a third degree felony charge. This is before the court on its own motion for summary disposition based on the lack of a substantial question for review. We affirm.
After plea negotiations, Green pleaded guilty to a reduced charge. He did not move to withdraw his plea before being sentenced. Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction to consider any issue related to the validity of his plea. See State v. Rhinehart, 2007 UT 61, ¶¶ 12-14, 167 P.3d 1046.
Additionally, there is no sentencing issue that presents a substantial issue for review. Appellate courts "traditionally afford the trial court wide latitude and discretion in sentencing." State v. Woodland, 945 P.2d 665, 671 (Utah 1997). Accordingly, a trial court's sentencing decision will be reversed only if it is an abuse of discretion. See State v. Helms, 2002 UT 12, ¶ 8, 40 P.3d 626.
Here, Green was sentenced to prison for the statutory time period of zero to five years. However, the trial court then suspended the sentence and placed Green on probation with credit for time served. The conditions of probation were related to his rehabilitation needs, specifically drug issues. Essentially, Green could not have received a more favorable sentence. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing.
Affirmed.
Pamela T. Greenwood, Presiding Judge, James Z. Davis, Judge, Carolyn B. McHugh, Judge.