Opinion
Docket No. 45341 2018 Unpublished Opinion No. 447
05-14-2018
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WYATT JAMES TUTTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Karel A. Lehrman, Clerk
THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY
Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Richard D. Greenwood, District Judge. Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed. Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; HUSKEY, Judge; and LORELLO, Judge
____________________
PER CURIAM
Wyatt James Tuttle pled guilty to lewd conduct with a minor under sixteen, Idaho Code § 18-1508. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a unified sentence of twenty years, with a minimum period of confinement of five years, and retained jurisdiction. After Tuttle completed his rider, the district court relinquished jurisdiction, sua sponte reducing the determinate term to three years. Tuttle appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation.
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 Tuttle has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.