Opinion
Docket No. 38639
03-08-2012
STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WILLIAM JOSEPH HALE, II, Defendant-Appellant.
Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 397
Stephen W. Kenyon, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Darla S. Williamson, District Judge.
Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.
Stephen D. Thompson, Ketchum, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM
William Joseph Hale, II, was convicted of felony violation of a no contact order, Idaho Code § 18-920. The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a one-year determinate term, suspended the sentence and placed Hale on supervised probation. Subsequently, Hale admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Hale's sentence. Hale filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence which the district court denied. Hale appeals the court's decision to relinquish jurisdiction and contends that the court abused its discretion in failing to sua sponte reduce his sentence upon relinquishing jurisdiction.
The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, instead, to relinquish jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Hernandez, 122 Idaho 227, 230, 832 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 786 P.2d 594 (Ct. App. 1990); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 567, 650 P.2d 707, 709 (Ct. App. 1982). Therefore, a decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman, 120 Idaho 466, 816 P.2d 1023 (Ct. App. 1991). 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 the district court did not abuse its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order 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); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 568, 650 P.2d at 710. 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.
Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in ordering execution of Hale's original sentence, without modification. Therefore, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and directing execution of Hale's previously suspended sentence is affirmed.