Opinion
48864
12-02-2021
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. RUBEN DANNY CHACON, Defendant-Appellant.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Cassia County. Hon. Michael P. Tribe, District Judge.
Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.
Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GRATTON, Judge; LORELLO, Judge; and BRAILSFORD, Judge
PER CURIAM.
Ruben Danny Chacon pled guilty to aggravated battery, Idaho Code § 18-907(1)(a). The district court imposed a suspended, unified sentence of fifteen years with eight years determinate and placed Chacon on probation. Chacon subsequently violated the terms of his probation. The district court revoked probation, retained jurisdiction, and Chacon was sent to participate in the rider program. Following a recommendation from the Idaho Department of Correction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Chacon 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 Chacon has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.
Chacon 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 Chacon's case. The record does not indicate that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing.
The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.