1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 41891

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DOMINGO MIGUEL ZAPATA,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 302

Filed: January 6, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Jerome County. Hon. John K. Butler, District Judge. 

Judgment of conviction and unified seven-year sentence with one and one-half 

year determinate term, affirmed; order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Kimberly E. Smith, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Theodore S. Tollefson, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Domingo Miguel Zapata was convicted of sexual abuse of a child under sixteen, Idaho 

Code § 18-1506. The district court imposed a unified seven-year sentence with a three-year 

determinate term and retained jurisdiction. Following a recommendation from the North Idaho 

Correctional Institute, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and ordered execution of 

Zapata’s sentence, reducing the determinate term to one and one-half years and giving Zapata 

credit for 257 days already served. Zapata appeals, contending that his sentence is excessive and 
2

that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction and failing to place him 

on probation.

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); 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). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record 

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

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); Toohill, 103 Idaho at 567, 650 P.2d at 709. 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.

Therefore, Zapata’s judgment of conviction and sentence and the order relinquishing 

jurisdiction are affirmed.