1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38996

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DONALD DEE CHAMBLISS,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 477

Filed: May 16, 2012

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Thomas F. Neville, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and executing unified sentence of twelve years 

with two years determinate, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Shawn F. Wilkerson, 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; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Donald Dee Chambliss pled guilty to sexual abuse of a child under the age of sixteen 

years. Idaho Code § 18-1506(b). Following his plea, Chambliss was sentenced to a unified term 

of twelve years with three years determinate and the district court retained jurisdiction. At the 

conclusion of the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction and 

ordered executed a reduced unified sentence of twelve years with two years determinate. 

Chambliss appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion when it relinquished 

jurisdiction and by failing to further reduce the length of his sentence.

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 
2

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 Chambliss has failed 

to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order 

relinquishing jurisdiction.

Chambliss also contends that his reduced sentence is excessive and constitutes an abuse 

of discretion. Sentences are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Our appellate standard of 

review and the factors to be considered when evaluating the reasonableness of a sentence are 

well-established. State v. Burdett, 134 Idaho 271, 1 P.3d 299 (Ct. App. 2000); State v. Sanchez, 

115 Idaho 776, 769 P.2d 1148 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Reinke, 103 Idaho 771, 653 P.2d 1183 

(Ct. App. 1982); State v. Toohill, 103 Idaho 565, 650 P.2d 707 (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). 

Chambliss argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been 

accomplished with probation. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation 

was not an appropriate course of action. The record does not indicate that there was an abuse of 

discretion in this case. Accordingly, the sentence is affirmed.

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Chambliss’ reduced sentence 

are affirmed.