State v. Novak

Full title: STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THOMAS JOSEPH ELIJAH NOVAK…

Court: COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Date published: Dec 17, 2012

Docket No. 39897 (Idaho Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2012)

Opinion

Docket No. 39897 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 762

12-17-2012

STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. THOMAS JOSEPH ELIJAH NOVAK, Defendant-Appellant.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

PER CURIAM

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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. Cheri C. Copsey, District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Kenneth K. Jorgensen, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Thomas Joseph Elijah Novak pled guilty to grand theft. Idaho Code §§ 18-2403(1), 18-2407(1)(b). The district court sentenced Novak to a unified sentence of ten years with three years determinate, but retained jurisdiction for 365 days, to run concurrently with another retained jurisdiction case in Canyon County. Upon review of Novak's period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and executed the underlying sentence. Novak orally requested a sentence reduction and, pursuant to Idaho Criminal Rule 35, the district court granted the motion and reduced the determinate term to two years. Novak appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing jurisdiction.

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 Novak has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order relinquishing jurisdiction.