With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". preceding fifteen years. In addition, the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sentence upon Lawyer’s conviction for felony DUI. Accordingly, Lawyer’s judgment of conviction and sentence for felony DUI is affirmed. Chief Judge LANSING, and Judge GRATTON concur. 1 . At the time of Lawyer’s conviction this provision was codified as Idaho Code § 18-8005(7). It has subsequently been recodified as Idaho Code Section 18-8005(9). 2009 Idaho Sess. Laws, ch. 184, § 5. 2 . This review excludes those jurisdictions which adhere to the rule that the existence of an identical name raises the presumption of identity, see United States v. Nguyen, 111 Fed.Appx. 439, 440-41 (8th Cir.2004), as this concept is incompatible with Idaho law. See Medrain, 143 Idaho at 332, 144 P.3d at 37 (<HOLDING>); Martinez, 102 Idaho at 880, 643 P.2d at 560

A: holding that evidence of the same name the fact that the previous conviction occurred in precinct of defendants residence and that although the defendant testified he did not deny that he was the person described in the record of the previous conviction was sufficient to establish identity
B: holding that a certified copy of a judgment of conviction bearing the same name as the defendant with nothing more is insufficient to establish the identity of the person formerly convicted beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding that evidence of the same name and that the former conviction was in same city and same court as the present case and the fact that the defendant did not offer any testimony to rebut the prima facie evidence of identity was sufficient to establish identity
D: holding that evidence of the same rather unusual name that the former conviction was in same county and city as the present case where evidence showed defendant lived and that the character of offenses was the same was sufficient to establish identity
B.