1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 39459

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

PATRISHIA HELEN GLADYS VON 

TERSCH,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 695

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THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED 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 Second Judicial District, State of Idaho, Nez 

Perce County. Hon. Carl B. Kerrick, District Judge. 

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed. 

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Justin M. Curtis, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, 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 concurrent unified sentences of five years, with a minimum period of confinment of two 

years, for two counts of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance. We affirm.

Patrisha Helen Gladys Von Tersch pled guilty to two count of delivery of a controlled 

substance. I.C. §§ 37-2732(a)(1)(b) and 37-2732(f). In exchange for her guilty pleas, additional 

charges were dismissed. Following her pleas, Von Tersch was sentenced to concurrent unified 

terms of five years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years. The district court 

withheld judgment and placed Von Tersch on probation. Von Tersch admitted to violating the 
2

terms of her probation. The district court revoked the withheld judgment and Von Tersch’s 

probation, ordered execution of her original sentences, but retained jurisdiction. Following 

completion of her rider, the district court placed Von Tersch on probation. Again Von Tersch 

admitted to violating the terms of her probation. The district court revoked Von Tersch’s 

probation and again retained jurisdiction. The district court ultimately relinquished jurisdiction. 

Von Tersch appeals, claiming that the district court erred by refusing to grant probation. 

She also argues that her sentences of five years, with a minimum period of confinment of two 

years, is excessive and constitutes an abuse of discretion.

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 Von Tersch has failed 

to show that the district court abused its discretion, and we therefore affirm the order 

relinquishing jurisdiction.

Von Tersch also contends that the unified sentences five years, with a minimum period of 

confinment of two years, are excessive and constitute an abuse of discretion. Sentences are 

reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 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). 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). 

Von Tersch argues that all of the relevant goals of sentencing could have been 

accomplished with probation. As noted above, however, the district court found that probation 

was not an appropriate course of action in Von Tersch’s case. The record does not indicate that 

concurrent unified terms of five years, with minimum periods of confinement of two years, are 
3

excessive or that the district court abuses its discretion in this case. Accordingly, the sentence is 

affirmed.

The order of the district court relinquishing jurisdiction and Von Tersch’s sentences are 

affirmed.