1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39566

STATE OF IDAHO , Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

KEITH DUANE CUNNINGHAM , Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 759

Filed: December 14, 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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY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. Cheri C. Cops ey , District Judge.
Order denying motion to dismiss withheld judgment, affirmed ; order denying motion to reconsider, affirmed

. Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Diane M. Walker, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Jessica M. Lorello, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ GUTIERREZ, Judge
K eith Duane Cunningham appeals from the district court’s order s denying his motion to
dismiss his withheld judgment and denying his motion to reconsider

. I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDUR AL BACKGROUND Cunningham pled guilty to statutory rape. In 2002, the district court granted a withheld judgment and ordered Cunningham to seven years of probation. In 2011, Cunningham filed a
motion to dismiss his withheld judgment
, specifically noting he had complied with the terms of his probation and that it would be in the best interest of society if the case w as dismissed. After a hearing, the district court denied the motion. Cunningham subsequently filed a motion to
reconsider
, which the district court also denied. Cunningham appeals.2 II.
ANALYSIS Where a withheld judgment has been granted, the district court has discretion to dismiss the case and discharge the defendant. Idaho Code § 19

- 2604; State v. Wiedmeier , 121 Idaho 189, 191, 824 P.2d 120 , 122 (1992). When a trial court’s discretionary decision is reviewed on appeal, the appellate court conducts a three

- prong inquiry to determine: (1) whether the lower court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the lower court acted within the boundaries of such discretion and consistently with any legal standards applicable to the

spe cific choices before it; and (3) whether the lower court reached its decision by an exercise of

reason. State v. Hedger , 115 Idaho 598, 600, 768 P.2d 1331, 1333 (1989). A motion for
reconsideration is reviewed under the same abuse of discretion standard. State v. Montague , 114 Idaho 319, 320, 756 P.2d 1083, 1084 (Ct. App. 1988). In his appeal, Cunningham concedes that under current law, “ any offense requiring sex offender registra tion as set forth in section 18

- 8304, Idaho Code, shall not be subject to dismissal
or reduction

. . . . ” I.C. § 19

- 2604

. Statutory rape, a violation of Idaho Code § 18

- 6101, is an offense that requires sex offender registration under section 18

- 8304. When Cunningham pled guilty to statutory rape in 2001, section 19

- 2604(1) did not preclude him from applying for
dismissal of his withheld judgment. The trial court had discretion to grant dismissal upon a satisfactory showing the defendant had “ at all times complied with the terms and conditions upon which he was placed on pro bation” and upon the trial court ’s findings that there was “ no longer cause for continuing the period of probation” and that granting dismissal was “ compatible with the public interest.” I.C. § 19

- 2604 (2001) (amended 2006). I n July 2006, section 19

- 2604 was amended to preclude dismissal for individuals who have been convicted of offenses requiring sex offender registration. 2002 Idaho Sess. Laws ch. 157, § 1. The Idaho Supreme Court has held that the amendment to section 19

- 2604 retroactively applies to defendants who pled guilty prior to when the amendment took effect on July 1, 2006
, and does not violate ex post facto laws. State v. Forbes , 152 Idaho 849, 275 P.3d 864 (2012) ; State v. Hardwick , 150 Idaho 580 , 249 P.3d 379 (2011)

. The Court stated the L egislature intended the amendment to apply to offenders who had already been granted a withheld judgment, as is the case here. Forbes , 152 Idaho at 851, 275 P.2d at 866; Hardwick
, 150 Idaho
at 582

- 83, 249 P.3d at 381

- 82.3 Although Cunningham concedes the law does not allow dismissal of his withheld judgment , he contends “ the law should not apply to him because that was not the agreement he had with the State of Idaho when he entered into lawful probation contracts for several years
with this State.” As the S tate points out, Cunningham offers no basis for overruling contro lling precedent and provides no legal authority supporting the proposition that his contract with the
S tate entitles him to dismissal of the withheld judgment. The district court correctly perceived the motion to dismiss the withheld judgment as one
of di scretion. More particularly, under the second prong of the abuse of discretion standard, the
district court relied on Idaho Supreme Court precedent interpreting section 19

- 2604 in determining the bounds of the court’s discretion. We find no abuse of disc retion by the district court either in denying Cunningham’s motion to dismiss his withheld judgment or in denying Cunningham’s motion for reconsideration.
III.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the district court’s order s denying Cunningham’s motion to dismiss his

w ith held judgment and denying Cunningham’s motion to reconsider. Chief Judge GRATTON and Judge LANSING CONCUR.