1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 36896

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM DONALD WOOD,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2010 Unpublished Opinion No. 554

Filed: July 20, 2010

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED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, Twin 

Falls County. Hon. G. Richard Bevan, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction and order denying I.C.R. 35 motion for reduction 

of sentence, affirmed.

Molly J. Huskey, State Appellate Public Defender; Heather M. Carlson, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy 

Attorney General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before LANSING, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

PER CURIAM

William Donald Wood pled guilty to attempted strangulation. Idaho Code §§ 18-923, 18-

112A. The district court imposed a unified eleven-year sentence with a five year determinate 

term, suspended the sentence and placed Wood on supervised probation for a period of four 

years. Subsequently, Wood admitted to violating several terms of the probation, and the district 

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

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

jurisdiction. Wood also filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion, which the district court denied. 

Wood appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion by relinquishing 

jurisdiction, and denying his Rule 35 motion.
2

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 Wood has 

failed to show that the district court abused its discretion.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). Upon review of the 

record, including any new information submitted with Wood’s Rule 35 motion, we conclude no 

abuse of discretion has been shown. 

Therefore, the district court’s orders relinquishing jurisdiction and denying Wood’s Rule 

35 motion, are affirmed.