1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 40755

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TIMOTHY LYNN FRIEL,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2014 Unpublished Opinion No. 547

Filed: June 4, 2014

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Timothy L. Hansen, 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; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

In this case we are asked to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in 

refusing to grant probation following a period of retained jurisdiction. We are also asked to 

review a unified sentence of eight years with two years determinate for rape. We affirm.

Timothy Lynn Friel pled guilty to rape. Idaho Code § 18-6101(1). Following his plea, 

the district court sentenced Friel to a unified term of eight years with two years determinate, and 

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

court suspended Friel’s sentence and placed him on supervised probation for eight years. 

Subsequently, Friel admitted to violating the conditions of his probation and the district court 

reinstated his supervised probation, extending the term for a period of five years from the date of 

reinstatement. Thereafter, Friel again violated his probation. The district court revoked his 
2

probation, ordered the underlying sentence executed, and retained jurisdiction. Following Friel’s 

second period of retained jurisdiction, the district court relinquished jurisdiction. Friel filed an 

Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which the district court denied.

Friel appeals, asserting that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing 

jurisdiction. He also argues that district court should have sua sponte reduced the sentence upon 

relinquishment of 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 Friel has 

failed to show that the district court abused its discretion in relinquishing jurisdiction.

Friel also contends that the district court abused its discretion by not reducing his 

sentence, sua sponte, pursuant to I.C.R. 35 when it relinquished jurisdiction. Pursuant to 

Rule 35, a court may reduce a sentence within 120 days after the court releases retained 

jurisdiction. A court’s decision not to reduce a sentence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 

In conducting our review, we consider the entire record and apply the same reasonableness of the 

original sentence. State v. Forde, 113 Idaho 21, 22, 740 P.2d 63, 64 (Ct. App. 1987); State v. 

Lopez, 106 Idaho 447, 449-51, 680 P.2d 869, 871-73 (Ct. App. 1984). 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). Applying those 

standards, and assuming Friel can appeal the court’s failure to sua sponte reduce his sentence, 

Friel has failed to show an abuse of discretion. 

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Friel’s sentence are affirmed.