State v. Jason Edward Duncan

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 39083 STATE OF IDAHO, ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 408 ) Plaintiff-Respondent, ) Filed: March 26, 2012 ) v. ) Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk ) JASON EDWARD DUNCAN, ) THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED ) OPINION AND SHALL NOT Defendant-Appellant. ) BE CITED AS AUTHORITY ) Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Patrick H. Owen, District Judge. Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for robbery, affirmed; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. ________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and MELANSON, Judge PER CURIAM Jason Edward Duncan was convicted of robbery, Idaho Code §§ 18-6501, 18-204. The district court imposed a unified ten-year sentence with a two-year determinate term and retained jurisdiction. 1 At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of Duncan’s sentence. Duncan filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of sentence which the district court denied. Duncan appeals the 1 The judgment of conviction initially misstated the sentence as a unified term of ten years with three years determinate. This error was corrected by a subsequent court order amending the judgment. 1 court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction and contends that his sentence is excessive and 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, 1014- 15 (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 Duncan’s original sentence, without modification. Therefore, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and directing execution of Duncan’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed. 2