1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39253

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

JOSE LUIS REYES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 697

Filed: October 31, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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. Michael R. McLaughlin, District Judge. 

Amended judgment of conviction and sentences of a unified term of five years, 

with two and one-half years determinate, and a consecutive, indeterminate term of 

five years, for two counts of felony violation of a no contact order, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Jason C. Pintler, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

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

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Jose Luis Reyes pled guilty to two counts of felony violation of a no contact order. Idaho 

Code § 18-920. The district court sentenced Reyes to consecutive unified terms of five years, 

with two and one-half years determinate, for each count. Thereafter, the district court sua sponte 

scheduled an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 hearing, wherein both parties argued for retained 

jurisdiction. The district court amended the judgment of conviction, reducing Reyes’s sentences

to a unified term of five years, with two and one-half years determinate, for the first count and a 

consecutive, indeterminate term of five years for the second count, but declined to retain 
2

jurisdiction. Reyes appeals, contending the district court abused its discretion in imposing 

excessive sentences and declining to retain 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); 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). 

The decision whether to retain jurisdiction is also a matter within the sound discretion of 

the district court. State v. Lee, 117 Idaho 203, 205-06, 786 P.2d 594, 596-97 (Ct. App. 1990). 

The primary purpose of a district court retaining jurisdiction is to enable the court to obtain 

additional information regarding whether the defendant has sufficient rehabilitative potential and 

is suitable for probation. State v. Jones, 141 Idaho 673, 677, 115 P.3d 764, 768 (Ct. App. 2005). 

There can be no abuse of discretion if the district court has sufficient evidence before it to 

conclude that the defendant is not a suitable candidate for probation. Id. 

Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot say that 

the district court abused its discretion. Therefore, Reyes’s amended judgment of conviction and 

sentences are affirmed.