Opinion
Docket No. 43985 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 738
10-20-2016
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. MIGUEL ANGEL HERNANDEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bingham County. Hon. Darren B. Simpson, District Judge. Order relinquishing jurisdiction and order denying Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Andrea W. Reynolds, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Miguel Angel Hernandez pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance, methamphetamine, Idaho Code § 37-2732(c)(1). The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence, with three years determinate, suspended the sentence, and placed Hernandez on a period of probation. Subsequently, Hernandez admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation, executed the underlying sentence, and retained jurisdiction. Hernandez was sent to participate in the retained jurisdiction program. After Hernandez completed his period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Hernandez filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. Hernandez appeals, claiming the district court erred by refusing to grant probation and by denying his I.C.R. 35 motion.
We note that the decision to place a defendant on probation or whether, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction over the defendant is a matter within the sound discretion of the district court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Hood, 102 Idaho 711, 712, 639 P.2d 9, 10 (1981); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). The record in this case shows that the district court properly considered the information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. We hold that Hernandez has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Hernandez argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been accomplished with probation. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation was not an appropriate course of action in Hernandez's case. The record does not indicate that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing.
Next, a motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In presenting an I.C.R. 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the record, including any new information submitted with Hernandez's I.C.R. 35 motion, we conclude no abuse of discretion has been shown. Therefore, the district court's order denying Hernandez's I.C.R. 35 motion is affirmed.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and the order denying Hernandez's I.C.R. 35 motion are affirmed.