1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36751

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

VINCENT PETRUSHKIN,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 448

Filed: May 4, 2010

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

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

Bonner County. Hon. Steven C. Verby, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and requiring execution of unified four-year 

sentence with two-year determinate term for criminal possession of a financial 

transaction card, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Vincent Petrushkin pled guilty to criminal possession of a financial transaction card. 

Idaho Code § 18-3125. The district court imposed a unified sentence of four years with two 

years determinate, suspended the sentence and placed Petrushkin on probation for three years. 

Subsequently, Petrushkin admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district 

court consequently revoked probation and ordered execution of the original sentence, but

retained jurisdiction. Following the period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished 

jurisdiction. Petrushkin appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by 

relinquishing jurisdiction and ordering execution of the underlying sentence.
2

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 

Petrushkin has failed to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm 

the order relinquishing jurisdiction.

The trial court, upon relinquishing jurisdiction, is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 

35 to reduce the sentence. 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). 

Sentencing is also a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review 

and the factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of a 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 the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion either in relinquishing jurisdiction or in ordering 

execution of Petrushkin’s original sentence. Therefore, the order relinquishing jurisdiction and 

directing execution of Petrushkin’s underlying sentence is affirmed.