Opinion
50589
11-22-2023
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NATHAN RAY KELLY ELLIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Bannock County. Hon. Rick Carnaroli, District Judge.
Judgment of conviction and sentence of five years determinate for aggravated assault, and concurrent unified sentence of three years with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for concealment of evidence, affirmed; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.
Erik R. Lehtinen, Interim State Appellate Public Defender; Jenny C. Swinford, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Raul R. Labrador, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before LORELLO, Chief Judge; GRATTON, Judge; and HUSKEY, Judge
PER CURIAM
Nathan Ray Kelly Ellis pled guilty to aggravated assault, Idaho Code § 18-905(a) and concealment of evidence, I.C. § 18-2603. In exchange for his guilty plea, additional charges were dismissed. The district court imposed a determinate term of five years for aggravated assault and a concurrent unified term of three years with two years determinate for concealment of evidence and retained jurisdiction. Several months later, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Ellis appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an excessive sentence and by relinquishing jurisdiction.
Sentencing is a matter for the trial court's discretion. Both our standard of review and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez, 121 Idaho 114, 117-18, 822 P.2d 1011, 101415 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant's entire sentence. State v. Oliver, 144 Idaho 722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Our role is limited to determining whether reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as the district court. State v. Biggs, 168 Idaho 112, 116, 480 P.3d 150, 154 (Ct. App. 2020).
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, 59697 (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.
Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Ellis's judgment of conviction and sentence as well as the order relinquishing jurisdiction are affirmed.